Armstrong claims that he never considered hinself to be a Journo. He claims he's a "Black conservative commentator" (a la' Rush Limbaugh).
Payola for pundits isn't unethical... It's expected.
He also insinuates that his "role" in the matter has been "framed".
<> Williams is not a NABJ member. In fact, prior to USA Today's report, Williams said, he viewed himself as a solely as commentator and not a journalist.
"Nobody listens to Black conservatives. They say we have no audience," said Williams, "then all of a sudden they treat me as a major journalist in America. I was never invited to be a part of the clubs, to be a part of the membership because they don't consider us journalists.
But now they've changed that." <>
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/armstrongpayola
There may be some truth to that... I mean, after all, how many million people watch FauxNews daily and think that *it's* really journalism?
A reasonably constructive critique from the same article: <> Nationally syndicated columnist Deborah Mathis, a BlackAmericaWeb contributor and regular on "America's Black Forum" alongside Williams, disputed her colleague's claim, calling him disingenuous.
"I understand that he may not have been trained or practiced in journalism, but there are some things in this sophisticated game that you pick up, and someone should not have to tell anybody about conflicts of interests; they have that in every field," said Mathis.
"One thing this episode does is ratchet up the cynicism about any kind of pundit in the media, and it sure doesn't help if you're trying to break from the pack - as Black conservatives are.
People already suspect that they're already speaking for Mr. Charley.
When Mr. Charley is paying them, people say, 'I knew it.'
It hurts not only his credibility; it hurts the credibility of those who are trying to follow in his footsteps and those who are already in the business now." <>
Assuming, of course, that he is a journalist and not just an "infomercial" face.
L
----- Original Message ----- From: joanna bujes To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Armstrong as self-syndicator
No, come on. There remains the notion of a "blatant transgression" -- the interests of this administration are not entirely perceived as being consonant or identical with the interests of the general public. It's a straw to cling to. I need a straw. Every day is a struggle with panic and depression...gimme a break.
Joanna
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Joanna:
>
>
>>I'm impressed and encouraged that there remains "a line to cross."
>>
>>
>>
>I think it is mere scapegoating to maintain face rather than the existence
>of actual standards. The jurnos need to maintain some semblance of
>credibility so an occasional purge for a blatant transgression creates an
>impression that the rest is credible.
>
>Wojtek
>
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.302 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005