dfwupallnight said:
Posters were discussing the ethics of "ringers" or staged callers, such as on the Huckabee show. I personally have no problem with them, but I really have to laugh at the "moral dilemma" this poses for some of the posters. THERE'S NO RULES IN RADIO!!
Just because something is not illegal or there are no formal industry rules or customs expressly prohibiting certain behavior does not mean that it is, therefore, exempt from valid ethical scrutiny and judgment on the part of audiences, advertisers or anybody else who chooses to take an interest in the subject.
Any action you take and
any behavior you engage in is fair game for others to use as a basis for forming conclusions about your character and integrity and whether you are worthy of inclusion in some aspect of their lives or business dealings. The same holds true for business organizations. (The fact that some people form conclusions which are hasty or inaccurate, unfair, unjust or irrational does not change the fact that it
is necessary to form such conclusions so that you can be careful and responsible in terms of who you choose to associate with). Radio personalities and broadcast companies are not somehow exempt from this.
I love radio, but it is the sleaziest industry I've ever worked in!
Sorry to have to point this out - but you just made an ethical judgment.
A person or organization that is "sleazy" is, by definition, of questionable and shoddy character. If it is true that the radio industry is in some way sleazy (I don't believe that to be the case), then just because a certain type of sleazy behavior is commonly accepted industry practice, that does not somehow exempt it from being properly regarded as subject of ethical judgment.
Of course, if you are going to make judgments and express them to others, you have a responsibility to do so in a careful, fact based and fair manner. If you go off spouting hastily formed or unfair judgments then it is
your credibility and
your character that is now properly open to question.
If you are in business or are engaged in any form of communications, your two most valuable assets over the long term are your
reputation and your
credibility. To engage in behavior that will lead to either being, in some way, tarnished, will, in the long run, work against you. Yes, you may be able to "get away with" sleazy behavior in the short-term. But if such behavior becomes a pattern it will catch up with you over the long-term because it will become increasingly difficult to find people who are willing to take you seriously or who wish to have anything to do with you. And if you engage in such behavior it is very difficult for it NOT to become a pattern. "Getting away with" such so-called "shortcuts" in life only makes the temptation to do so again that much greater next time you find yourself in a bind or when such an opportunity presents itself. Pretty soon, that becomes the
only way you know how to make a living and support your lifestyle. The short-term "solution" that such behavior provides prevents one from learning the skills and earning the reputation necessary for legitimate success in the long run.
Now, getting back to planted calls. Yes, a planted call, by its very nature, involves a certain amount of deception. But the ethical propriety of such deception entirely depends on what the radio program is seeking to accomplish through it.
To a very large degree, radio is theater. Fans of pre-television old time radio often refer to it as "theater of the mind." Those who are good at radio are good at painting and planting illusions in the minds of listeners - illusions that, if done right, can be far more powerful and "real" to the listener than a visual medium such as television is capable of. Very often, if you really want to pick things apart, one can say that creating such illusions involves a certain degree of intentional deception. But, as mere theater, it is harmless. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there is a certain form of deception involved. But such deception is the very
value that the audience seeks by watching the performance in the first place.
But such deception becomes a problem when one seeks to fake reality in order to obtain something from others that is
unearned.
In the case of the Huckabee show deception, Cumulus, as part of its efforts to promote the show, has been peddling the notion that there is a widespread anti-Rush Limbaugh sentiment in Rush's audience and that there is a large, previously untapped demand for "non-strident" right of center talk radio. This is what they have been putting forth to sign up affiliates and have been saying to the press in order to drum up listener interest. While I think some of their potshots against Limbaugh have been inaccurate and unjust, there is certainly nothing wrong with them attempting to make a case that there is a demand for wishy washy (i.e., 'non-strident") milquetoast talk radio. That is called marketing and is entirely legitimate. But if the basis for such marketing consists of intentionally used false information, then it
is an ethical issue - and, after a certain point, it becomes fraudulent.
The reason the Huckabee call was unethical is because the whole purpose was to hoodwink listeners, affiliates, advertisers and the media into giving Cumulus's marketing claims a certain veracity and credibility
that it did not legitimately earn. What Cumulus did is absolutely no different from an ethical standpoint than some business owner posting fake online reviews praising his company and products. And, in both cases, when such behavior is caught, the organization's credibility and reputation is deservedly tarnished.
Should Cumulus or Huckabee be punished for it? No, if by punish one means any sort of legal or FCC consequences. But it
should be regarded by stations, advertisers and listeners as a stain on Cumulus's and the program's reputation and credibility. It opens up the question as to what other forms of deceptive behavior Cumulus might have perhaps engaged in when promoting the program. After all, it is now a matter of public record that they have shown that they
are willing to engage in such behavior.
As for Huckabee, while he may or may not have been responsible for the call and may or may not have been in a position to refuse to participate, his credibility takes a hit too. People tune in to talk programing to be entertained - but they also tune in to stay informed and to hear the host's particular point of view on the issues of the day. Listeners expect an opinion show host to be opinionated and to even have certain biases. But people expect the host to sincerely believe in the opinions he puts forth. I don't know
anybody who enjoys discovering that they have, in some way, been hoodwinked. I have my own definite political views - but if I discover a talk show host attempting to put forth views that I agree with on the basis of deceptive or false information, that host immediately loses all credibility in my eyes and I want
nothing to do with him at all as a spokesperson for my cause. I do not need to resort to deception in order argue a case for my views - and those who do tarnish the things I stand for. And since I value the truth as well as my own reputation and credibility, I do not wish to inadvertently accept falsehoods such a host might put forth as being the truth.
Credibility of the host tends to be a very important issue for a great many people on the political Right who turn to talk radio and alternative media in the first place because they feel that the mainstream media is constantly pushing a hidden agenda and that such media often views them as school children in need of indoctrination. In other words, people on the Right hold a
very deep level of skepticism of media outlets in general. They may be inclined to give someone who purports to be on the same side a certain amount of benefit of the doubt. But if they are given reason to doubt the person's sincerity, trust me, they
will turn on them - and fast.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that the Huckabee call, in and of itself, is going to doom the program or necessarily be a big deal in the long run. But it has received a certain amount of attention in Right oriented media - and it is something that can be readily accessed and come back to haunt him if future events raise enough questions regarding his credibility to justify it. In the long run, the audience will determine if it was just an unfortunate error in judgment or part of a wider pattern of concern.
I will add this regarding Huckabee in particular: the man is an ordained
preacher and has functioned as such professionally. In other words, whether you agree with his religious views or not, he has put himself forth as a person for those who are seeking moral and ethical guidance to turn to and has agreed to live a life that sets a moral example for others to follow. That means he has intentionally placed himself in a position where he should properly be held to a higher standard of conduct and scrutiny than some ordinary "long haired, dope smoking, maggot infested, good-time rock 'n roll plastic banana FM type" (to use Rush's memorable phrase) who eventually discovered he was a conservative and had a flair and talent for talk radio.
