Permit me, if you will, for the brief intrusion by the Boy Wonder of the original, campy Batman series:
“Holy hutzpah, Batman!” (Genuinely uttered by Robin, if this website’s facts are in order).
Today’s topic of incredulity is payola – not the mispronounced, yet delectable Spanish rice dish, but that egregious act of dropping dollar sign labelled sacks of cold, hard cash on the laps of commentators, columnists and pundits. In plain English: paying someone to promote a point of view, to argue from a specific standpoint, to come out in favour of a particular policy. In a word: bribery.
I guess the emcee was right: money does make the world go round, the world go round…
Even my own skewed version of ethics can place the recent discoveries of paid proselytizers Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus into the “baaaaaaaaaaaad” category. For those who have been living under the proverbial rock these past few weeks, revel in their respective exposés on GoogleNews.
(Mind you, if offered $240,000, who among us does not immediately replace their pupils with $$ à la Bugs Bunny et al.?)
To shill or not to shill, that is the question…many (presumably unsullied) commentators have harped about how implicitly wrong it is for writers of any feather to accept money for promoting a stance. And if it does happen, then gosh, you better darn well disclose it! As you would expect however, there are 259 different sides to this coin. For a frank look at the nuanced opinions on payola, check out Editor & Publisher’s examination of what colleagues of Williams, Gallagher & McManus have to say.
The one thing that puzzles me the most from this media brouhaha are the desires of Williams and co. to have their cake and eat it to. They insist that they already believe in the policies that they advanced (in their cases, education and marriage). Maybe I’ve been inundated with an antiquated view of writing, but if you truly believe in something, why the materialism? If you really want to get paid for writing about your beliefs, join a think tank or become a university professor…
I think a grand sweeping statement is in order: People prefer to hear opinions over news. The popularity of Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart (and yes, he's simply espousing his opinion) can certainly attest to the validity of said sweeping statement. While our consciousnesses are peppered daily with events that educate us about the global scene, is there anything grander that watching, reading or listening to our favourite commentator ripping into what irks him or her at that very point in time?
No comments:
Post a Comment