Journalist/Commentators

Every broadcaster worth his/her salt (and certainly one who has broadcast in a major city more than ten-years) should be familiar with Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations just as a physician should be familiar with a thermometer or stethoscope. Selling “spots” (usually one minute or less) is not the same as selling programs (usually more than a minute). Selling programs obviously involves programming –which always leads to tensions between ad-sales and the programmer. Although smaller stations occasionally allow broadcasters to wear multiple hats and even sell commercials, frequently that practices leads to trouble within the functioning broadcast operation, i.e., jeopardizing other A/E’s relationships with advertisers, potential payola or and practices of favoritism. In the case reference herein, it is safe to describe the incidents as “infomercials.” Therefore, the licensed holder is ultimately responsible not declaring the programming as paid-programming—as the license holder is responsible for every item aired on their respective frequencies. A journalist’s work is evident in their presentation. The same is true for a DJ or talk show host. Choose which one you want to be – and stick to the conventional ethics of your respective profession. Pick one.

Every journalist, even first-year students in communication, know that exchanging money or favors is at the least dishonest and deceitful and certainly insincere. The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides special privileges to those in the journalism business in order to make for a perfect nation. There are journalists currently held hostage in Iraq and Korea, and on trail in America for being truthful to their profession. It is an insult for anyone to call himself or herself a journalist, while perpetrating fraud to the American news consumer, and when caught say, “it was a mistake.” How does any broadcaster, DJ, newscaster, commentator, or talk show host legitimately justify exchanging payment for accessing airtime to others and then calling it a mistake? There are distinct departments in any broadcast operation, i.e., programming and promotion, local and national advertising sales, and talent that prevents so-called “mistakes.”

A mistake is breaking a coffee cup. A mistake is forgetting to put salt in the birthday cake batter. To build a career criticizing the judgments and mistakes of political figures as unprofessional, not paying their taxes, not behaving professionally, and the same time, spent ten years not voting, owes more than $11,000 in back taxes, and actually charged specially chosen candidates $1,000 dollars per TV interview for an upcoming election is mindboggling. Professionally, the journalist/broadcaster in question should return the money to the candidates – immediately and issue a public apology. Moreover, in the name of full disclosure, the journalist/broadcaster should fully disclose any other monies or favors exchanged over the years for radio and/or television interviews presented as interviews as quid pro quo, including dinners, trips, gifts, etc. That is if the self-described “professional” journalist wants to redeem him/herself within the eyes of the journalism community of peers and rehabilitate their reputation.

Secondly, with technology and multiple channels of message delivery, including AM/FM/XM/Sirius, cable, satellite, and Internet; the problem becomes defining journalism versus commentary. Are Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hanity journalists or commentators? Is Fox News Network a news station or a commentary station? When Barbara Walters sits at the table on the View is she a commentator or a journalist? If the broadcaster in question is a journalist, then he/she violated the fundamentals of journalism – and will likely be used as an example in journalism school across America as what not to do, as in Armstrong Williams and President George W. Bush’s education reform. Williams was paid handsomely to deliver the Republican movement’s message on No Child Left Behind, but he too made a mistake and forgot to disclose the small detail of being paid over $200.000 to promote the policy until other media outted him. Today, Williams’ reputation as a broadcast journalist is only a shadow of his once prominent place in the urban community.

Lastly, before the recent days when broadcast companies hired anyone willing to work on the radio or TV for free or for minimum wages, talent contracts included ethics and morals clauses. The talent would be released from the contract should they do anything considered immoral, illegal, or viewed by the FCC as an embarrassment to the broadcast station; however, when the owners of these consolidated broadcast facilities themselves are less than honest with the public interest, what becomes the standard of work performance imitates what ownership allows. Obviously, broadcast frequency trustees, who are allowed to use the American owned airwaves in exchange for serving in the public interests, should define themselves and their employees as public servants, or admit to being custodial operators for Wall Street investors. Pick one.