WARNING: KINDA POLITICS AHEAD
I don’t actually want to get political in this post, but I am talking about politically related things. Hence the warning. What I want to talk about is Armstrong Williams, so if you’re right-wing, and can’t stand to see anyone left-wing talk about a conservative commentator no matter how apolitical she attempts to be, you might want to skip this post. Though I will attempt even-handedness.
IF YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS, OR ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY LIBERAL, COMMIE PINKO VIEWPOINTS, READ NO FURTHER. Thank you, and sorry for the caps lock:
First, before I go any further, a little background. For those of you who haven’t been following this story, Armstrong Williams is a conservative, African-American columnist who was given $240,000 by the U.S. Education Department (via Ketchum, Inc., a public relations firm) to praise the “No Child Left Behind” Act in his syndicated column and during television and radio appearances. Williams did not disclose that he was receiving this money, and so some people are claiming this was bribe money.
I don’t want to simply condemn Williams for taking the money and not telling anyone about it. What I want to talk about is the effect this will hopefully have on the American public and American politics.
First of all, this was not really a bribe. He’s a conservative columnist. He most likely would have said good things about “No Child” anyway. He should have been saying it without $240,000, but if he can make the money too, more power to him. It’s not like it’s technically illegal for him to do so. It’s just very, very unethical of him to not tell people he’s receiving money to tout the program.
But of course he wouldn’t tell. It would ruin his credibility as a third-party endorser of the Republican party. And he is an important supporter of the Republican party, which is something I think Democrats really need to sit up and take notice of.
The traditional wisdom is that African-American voters care about religion and education the most. Republicans have the religion edge. If they can get the education edge too, they may win over a traditionally Democratic demographic. And they really, really want this. So much so that Williams received $240,000 to push a Republican agenda he would have already pushed. To put it in some sort of perspective, $50,000 would have been a helluva lot of money to ask someone to advocate a particular viewpoint, but $240,000? My goodness.
Williams was worth a lot because he was African-American and conservative. Make all the jokes you want about how rare that is, but Republicans know that with the right figureheads, they can win a previously unwinnable population segment. The Republicans have a plan here. And it’s a good one. I certainly hope the Democrats are prepared to fight on this.
This discussion of third-party endorsement ethics has also brought up another issue that has been only vaguely mentioned before: television news stations taking pre-packaged segments from government and public relations organizations and running them as if they were actual news. My message to America on this subject is as such: It’s not new. Remember Karen Ryan?
They’re called Video News Releases (VNRs), and while unaltered ones run as news stories are relatively rare, they’re pretty standard in television. This is where the media gets a lot of its information for stories. There isn’t enough time for every story on the 7 a.m., 6 p.m., and 10 p.m. news shows to be investigated by a reporter, filmed, edited and put together every single day. Lots of filler, and even important, news stories, both on TV and in text are at the very least from a public relations source, and a lot of details or news footage comes from PR.
I think we all need to be more aware of this practice. It does seem manipulative to have an organization come up with a piece of advertising for their organization/govt. department/particular viewpoint, and have it treated like it was created by a fairly objective news source. Knowing about it isn’t going to stop anyone from using VNRs (because we’d need fewer news shows for starters), but it will make the people who produce these segments realize that the American people know what’s going on, and that not everything said in the news, should be trusted. It will make the government and public relations firms more likely to be open with the public.
Which is basically what this rambling post is all about: Disclosure. I think we all have a right to know who is saying things and why. Williams should have told everyone he was receiving money to applaud “No Child Left Behind.” People should know that not all of their news is researched by investigative reporters. This will force everyone to be more ethical in their political dealings, and that will be a happy day. For me, at least.
IF YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS, OR ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY LIBERAL, COMMIE PINKO VIEWPOINTS, READ NO FURTHER. Thank you, and sorry for the caps lock:
First, before I go any further, a little background. For those of you who haven’t been following this story, Armstrong Williams is a conservative, African-American columnist who was given $240,000 by the U.S. Education Department (via Ketchum, Inc., a public relations firm) to praise the “No Child Left Behind” Act in his syndicated column and during television and radio appearances. Williams did not disclose that he was receiving this money, and so some people are claiming this was bribe money.
I don’t want to simply condemn Williams for taking the money and not telling anyone about it. What I want to talk about is the effect this will hopefully have on the American public and American politics.
First of all, this was not really a bribe. He’s a conservative columnist. He most likely would have said good things about “No Child” anyway. He should have been saying it without $240,000, but if he can make the money too, more power to him. It’s not like it’s technically illegal for him to do so. It’s just very, very unethical of him to not tell people he’s receiving money to tout the program.
But of course he wouldn’t tell. It would ruin his credibility as a third-party endorser of the Republican party. And he is an important supporter of the Republican party, which is something I think Democrats really need to sit up and take notice of.
The traditional wisdom is that African-American voters care about religion and education the most. Republicans have the religion edge. If they can get the education edge too, they may win over a traditionally Democratic demographic. And they really, really want this. So much so that Williams received $240,000 to push a Republican agenda he would have already pushed. To put it in some sort of perspective, $50,000 would have been a helluva lot of money to ask someone to advocate a particular viewpoint, but $240,000? My goodness.
Williams was worth a lot because he was African-American and conservative. Make all the jokes you want about how rare that is, but Republicans know that with the right figureheads, they can win a previously unwinnable population segment. The Republicans have a plan here. And it’s a good one. I certainly hope the Democrats are prepared to fight on this.
This discussion of third-party endorsement ethics has also brought up another issue that has been only vaguely mentioned before: television news stations taking pre-packaged segments from government and public relations organizations and running them as if they were actual news. My message to America on this subject is as such: It’s not new. Remember Karen Ryan?
They’re called Video News Releases (VNRs), and while unaltered ones run as news stories are relatively rare, they’re pretty standard in television. This is where the media gets a lot of its information for stories. There isn’t enough time for every story on the 7 a.m., 6 p.m., and 10 p.m. news shows to be investigated by a reporter, filmed, edited and put together every single day. Lots of filler, and even important, news stories, both on TV and in text are at the very least from a public relations source, and a lot of details or news footage comes from PR.
I think we all need to be more aware of this practice. It does seem manipulative to have an organization come up with a piece of advertising for their organization/govt. department/particular viewpoint, and have it treated like it was created by a fairly objective news source. Knowing about it isn’t going to stop anyone from using VNRs (because we’d need fewer news shows for starters), but it will make the people who produce these segments realize that the American people know what’s going on, and that not everything said in the news, should be trusted. It will make the government and public relations firms more likely to be open with the public.
Which is basically what this rambling post is all about: Disclosure. I think we all have a right to know who is saying things and why. Williams should have told everyone he was receiving money to applaud “No Child Left Behind.” People should know that not all of their news is researched by investigative reporters. This will force everyone to be more ethical in their political dealings, and that will be a happy day. For me, at least.