amandacongdon.com

Interesting. I’m daily reader of HuffPo and will continue to be so but they certainly aren’t above using sensational headlines. Sad. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a headline like this on their sites. Oh well…media is media is media, sadly, and I suppose that I still like much of what comes from that site better than what I see on similar sites.

Keep up the good work, Amanda!

You are now officially a corporate shill. You’ve sold your credibility.

It’s not surprising that you’ are now deflecting criticism; it goes hand-in-hand with an absence of professional integrity.

Credibility as what? A biased blogger? I’ve been doing commercials for years. Don’t try to squeeze me into your antiquated paradigms. I have seen not one real argument as to why this was wrong in any way. Calling me a “shill” does not constitute an argument.

This is fun!

I’m, uh, not exactly a fan of DuPont. But this “controversy” is a joke. And it shows that no matter how much they claim to be new-media oriented, a lot of people are still using the old-media paradigms that were drilled ijto their heads for a couple of decades.

Feh!

Hey, there’s a positive spin to this:

You’ve arrived! They think of you as a real journalist now!

Sort of.

When it’s convenient for them to do so.

Being a “Bias blogger” is fine as long as the opinions that you publish are your own. From here forward, no one can trust that your opinions are your own.

Ethics is not an “antiquated paradigm.” Nice try.

I never published the DuPont commercials. DuPont did. Then I highlighted the fact they were commercials on my blog, so as to make sure there was no confusion.

I always make it clear when something is a commercial. I do it on every episode of Starring Amanda Congdon before the ad rolls, just to make sure everyone knows what’s what. I think it’s important to distinguist between commercials and content. And that’s what I do.

But I guess what you’re really saying is that all people who act in commercials are unethical, which makes a lot of sense… ?

Nice try.

I know surviving and making a living is very important, but This chemical company puts on a main stream media happy face, the fact remains, this company is responible for massive polution and many early deaths both here and abroad.

Being credible is very important for newscasters, weither it be a blog or a main stream outlet. There are very few truly credible voices. try and be one by emulating both Amy Goodman (Democracy Now) or Bill Moyers (PBS) a tall order, I know, but worth the climb.

Thanks,
Dave

Hi David, I understand your concern.

There is definitely considerable baggage that often comes along with a company that’s been around as long as DuPont has. But I think what they contribute to the world outweighs the damage they’ve done in the past. And there was damage– you are right. Again, this is just my opinion.

I also wonder if there would be this much chatter if it were a typical TV ad, or if it’s the nature of the ad itself that is ruffling feathers. I was half expecting that…

dodge, deflect, and distort … are you running for office?

never-mind, you’re not worth any more of our time. Enjoy oblivion.

“John Q. Public”, you have no argument, whatsoever. If you did, you could (and would) respond. Again, I have heard no compelling arguments on this matter.

Crabs in a bucket.

In the spirit of being less snarky, can I ask an honest question? Did you anticipate any blowback from doing a DuPont commercial? After all, industrial chemicals are not really your kind of product. By contrast, Dove’s ad campaign fits your persona. You’re a young, attractive, woman. Acting as a spokesperson for what is essentially a beauty product makes total sense for you. But DuPont and you make a strange juxtaposition. Perhaps its that jarring difference that causes people to judge and criticize.

I have essential problems with DuPont’s business practices, their corporate ethics, political influence, and their status as a world polluter. But it’s the last item that throws a monkey wrench into the mix. Despite a concerted effort by their PR team, DuPont has had, and continues to have, chronic problems with pollution. Since you’re on the record as a supporter of things ‘green’ it makes you seem like a disingenuous spokesperson to do their web spots.

I don’t think it’s the commercials themselves that are causing peoples reactions, I think it’s the company that paid you to do them. I don’t think people believe you are a true and ardent supporter of a chemical company like DuPont. Personally, I don’t know and I don’t care. But if it’s true that you don’t believe what you’re saying in these commercials, then that’s pretty much the dictionary definition of a shill.

I don’t see what’s the big deal. As long as you specify that it’s an ad, this whole “Scoop” is pointless.

Hi Amanda:

I don’t think you’ve evil, or a shill or any other epithet that might make an interesting headlilne.

You might very well be doing more science-related videos (or maybe not), but why are you under attack? I enjoyed your brief explanation of Nomex–much better than the DuPont Web site. You delivered more pertinent info than even the Wikipedia entry.

You can be assured that as a Web denizen, I’ll notify you when it’s apparent that you’re part of a cabal to destroy the world as we know it. In the mean time, you go girl.

Bill K.

These commercials are lame, and make you look lame. Anyone should understand this. You’re a celebrity, not a reporter. When a celebrity pitches a crummy, controversial, or lame product – it makes them look lame. I don’t see a journalistic crisis b/c you chose to shill for DuPont – but unfortunately it does kinda make you look bad. Choose something fun next time!

It’s your self-righteous liberal “friends” at HuffPo that are giving you grief about this. Conservatives are more understanding about internet business ventures.

Hey Amanda, you great environmentalist.
ABC not paying you big enough bucks.
I used to respect you, not anymore.
Dupont is one of the major polluters of this planet
plus they use slave labor to manufacture their products.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1995/03/mm0395_11.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/dupont_teflon.html

http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20021113/20021213.php

You can probably find 100s of articles describing Dupont wrongdoings.

You’ve become a typical phoney LA celebrity. Guess that was your dream, hey?
“And don’t you ever come into my living room again!”

Especially not with this trash:

http://www2.dupont.com/Stories/en_US/index.html

B-man

Regarding my comment above, I will still tune into your blog & etc, and I’m still a fan – but I wish you had selected a different company to work with!

In connecting the dots to this theme, it seems that this audience has taken positions on both your credibility as well as your principles (the latter of which might be more vulnerable as a result of your defense).

Clearly, the television networks are constantly juggling ethics and competition for advertising revenues, which I suspect lies at the root of this debate. The fact that your “infotainmercials” appear on the opposite sides of the fence from ABC’s coverage of sensitive issues is not your responsibility. However, you have an opportunity to consider growing a reputation for constructive journalism as your popularity grows, as opposed to getting “caught” trying to explain why you break rules. Keep in mind, what you do in the media might not be as important as how you do it.

Hint: “getting caught” is what I consider an antiquated paradigm. Apparently, you have some pretty smart fans. I’d like to become one of them. Good luck!

Journalist or blogger or whatever… having a blog is very different from traditional journalism. I don’t get my news from blogs so I don’t care who endorses you or who you endorse.

Blogs do make you much more accessible to the public. That’s great and terrible at the same time. For some reason, random douchebags think they have every right in the world to attack you personally. Lucky you!

Hey Amanda,
Geez, people let’s not loose sleep over this! Amanda got an opportunity to do a commercial which helps get her in the public eye (beyond blogworld).

Frankly, I cannot think of any company or organization that she could have done an Ad for that wouldn’t have some potential negative impact. It’s a fact of life today (unfortunately). Let’s keep a little perspective…..say congratulations to Amanda for a nice Ad spot…. And discuss important issues like Darfur or the Iraq War or the increase in Alzheimer’s disease which is looming on over 20% of the population or even, gasp!, Global Warming.

Hang in their Amanda!

I don’t see any conflict … there is a huge difference between top down broadcast where we are asked to believe the journalists are impartial (like “fair and balanced Fox News” and Judith Miller at the NYTs) and blogs where point of view is assumed by the blogger and readers.

Your gift is clear and witty presentation. I’m sure your regular audience can make the distinction between work done for someone else and your own point of view. Inserting a “ok – this is me and what I believe in” into pieces that are your own bloggish opinions and passions might be a good flag.

Let’s see, you supposedly imaintain your credibility because you don’t hide the fact that your are being paid as a spokesperson for DuPont? But how will we know when you might be ”crossing the line” in one of your stories. After all it was you that said “Isn’t that what new media is all about? Breaking the rules? Setting our own?”
Maybe next time your “breaking the rules” will not be so transparent, it will just be Amanda setting her own rules. You can try to spin this all you want but you have no business on the ABC News website.
ABC News has two choices: either cut you loose or have the integrity of the entire website compromised.

Amanda,

Saying that, as a blogger, you are not subject to the traditional rules of journalists is sort of begging the question, which is, Should you be? Are there benefits to bloggers, especially ones who’ve allied with the MSM, respecting the rules by which traditional journalists play?

In this case, the idea that journalists (and bloggers?) shouldn’t do ads goes to the question of credibility, and that issue is just as relevant to bloggers as it is to MSM journalists. After all, the phenomenon of bloggers being paid to insert plugs into their blogs is becoming a big problem.

I think that this is too much of a gray area for people to get outraged—it’s just not that clear-cut— and your full disclosure certainly helps. At the same time, I also think you’re dodging some of the tougher issues this ad raises.

I appreciate the notion that we are going through a paradigm shift and we need to get away from the rigid, restrictive assumptions of old media.

But one thing does not change: As someone who appears on camera, your name is your brand.

You established yourself as an independent voice in the journalistic tradition (i.e., you tell stories about things happening in the world that are true). Rocketboom was unorthodox and unpredictable and unbeholden, but we never had any doubt about the veracity or motivations behind what you were saying. Your work at ABC News is/was similar.

Now we see your brand is for sale.

This does not make you greedy or evil or unethical. It makes you a spokeswoman. It may be, as you point out, only one of many hats you wear. But it clashes with the thing you did that people respected and responded to.

You can dismiss the criticism as small-minded or mean-spirited. I think it’s mainly surprise on the part of people who thought they knew your brand.

Well, if there was ever any question what exactly your role was in this new media paradigm, there certainly isn’t now.

And I am quite sure no-one really considers your hawking for an enormous chemical company as “breaking the rules”, no matter how hard you try and convince them.

Let’s put it simply:

If you ever report anything having to do with Du Pont – or perhaps even anything to do with the petrochemical industry – on ABC News.com, I’m not going to trust what you say, because you may have been paid by Du Pont to say it, whether or not you warn me beforehand.

You keep doing paid infotainmentmercials or whatever they’re called, you’re going to run out of things you can report on without bias.

Hey – good on you for getting money from Du Pont. Shame on ABC News They’re performing “acts of deceit,” with your “acts of journalism.”

You are such a phony. Do you really think your spin that you made those infomercials as “a little experiment” is believable? Did you just call up the Exexs at DuPont and propose a “little experiment”?
More likely your agents got you the gig and you liked the easy money. Nothing wrong with that, just say so. Enough with the “holier that thou” attitude. You are so full of yourself and your “new media” moniker that you think no journalistic rules apply to you.

[...] I’ll just say this could be a little better marked… other commentators have been more up in arms. This is perhaps beyond product placement — “infotainmercials,” Congdon calls them. [...]

[...] • ABC says Amanda Congdon is not subject to the rules traditional journalists have to follow. Because she’s a freelancer. With a really nice rack. And a totally creepy disembodied hand! [...]

It’s easy… call yourself a “blogger” because it means there are no rules. If you really look at ABC News position, you should be called a webcaster by their definition and based on the other videos on the site. Instead, they call you a blogger so they can seem cutting edge.

You are a journalist – same as the guy from the NY Times or the woman from the London Times. And in fact, you are treated to things, others are not. How many other “bloggers” could have received time with Dan Rather? I doubt many. And if you didn’t have ABC news behind you, you wouldn’t have either.

It’s easy to fit into a box to make sure you can do whatever you want. I would have respected you more had you just said “I am doing whatever I want”.

Wow… I’m kind of speechless about this, really. You said it yourself, Amanda – you never published these videos, and you’re making it clear here that they’re advertising commercials. In all honesty that’s all there really is to say about all this. Anyone who thinks you’re doing a terrible thing or you’re a “shill” is simply deluded.

Here’s the deal, people. I’m not going to say that all the blogs posting these “exposés” about Amanda are simply jealous of her, but the fact is, she started out with the very same resources you and me have to offer (for some of us, minus the good looks) and took her career to new levels. It’s understandable at that point to branch out and do more things. We are all a part of the new media, and like Amanda says, we make the rules – and the rules may not be the same for everyone.

This is really a non-issue. I’m just a small voice, but I stand by you on this one, Amanda.

Amanda, here’s the deal: Say Dupont or one of the other companies you shill for, say, spills deadly chemicals into the Hudson River. You may have previously blogged about some other company’s anti-environment activities.

Can we trust that you would treat Dupont or any of your other customers exactly the same as a company with which you have no financial ties? No matter how ethical or gutsy you think you are, the answer is no.

It has nothing to do with traditional journalism, new paradigms, etc. It’s all about credibility, and each time you do one of these commercials you sell another piece of yours.

Hi Amanda,

Sounds like you have put yourself in a tough situation. I do not think your intentions were bad at all, however since you are now in the public spotlight, you need to think about how others might view your actions. Any decisions you make will have an adverse effect on your career if you are not careful. I am suprised your publicist or ABC/HBO did not tell you to be careful, or advise against it?

The tech/web 2.0 community is a hard crowd to please, and since they spend a lot of their time online, where information travels quickly, you need to be careful here.

Can someone clarify the difference between the DuPont ads and the Dove ad? Why was there no outrage about her commercial for a beauty product? I sincerely don’t get it.

While Dupont literally has skeletons in its closets, for the world’s leading chemical company, it’s fairly benign. Amanda’s role as spokesperson will be sure to raise their profile amongst the liberal internet ‘elite’ . So congrats to Amanda, and kudos to all those who are keeping close watch on DuPont’s practices. You have a slightly bigger audience now.

Unfortunately, I think it’s the bad aura that a “chemical” company projects; it’s something the online media can sell so-to-speak. Figuratively speaking, you are right, there is little difference.

Amanda, I have to say this is a bit of comeuppance for you. The reason I say that is because of your ABC report a couple months ago, where you questioned the credibility of bloggers getting paid by Edwards (like me, which I disclosed). I thought you were on quite a high horse there, but I didn’t bother to respond since most people know I make my living by producing video for clients – not by blogging, or working for any journalistic organization.

Likewise, you make your living as video talent/producer. The difference is, you work for a journalistic news organization. Most bloggers don’t have an ABC News logo next to their work. Obviously you’re not conducting hard journalism for ABC – I think of you as a tour guide to interesting things, bringing up interesting questions. There is a journalistic element to what you do, and an entertainment element.

This is all kinds of gray area, and a lot of people will look at it through the old black-and-white lens. I don’t personally have an issue with it – as long as you don’t have an issue with me getting paid by Edwards.

One needs to accept responsibility for the products one endorses. Why not do an infotainment ad endorsing the use of heroin, meth or crack? They’re not so bad. Com’on you’ll just be showing us all your Amanda sides, perhaps even track marks, no harm done, right? If we have no social conscious, ethics or self-imposed morality then we will all end up in the shithole universe of I’m a journalist who knows sweet fuck all about the subject. But I have a blog site, so look at me!!! What about human character, human decency, just plain common sense? People are applauding you sucking money from Dupont? That’s as sick as you doing the spots in the first place.

So called Blogger-Journalists have become popular because the state of journalism over the last 2 decades has been pathetic. And today it’s just a free-for-all. The one who screams and lies the loudest wins. To wit the Iraq war and now the whole global warming kerfuffle. I’ve decided to get my news from a sewer rat and twin-cockroaches. They’re more in tune to what’s going on and have been here on this planet way longer than any of us.

Hi Amanda,

Here is the problem, from the viewpoint of an “old media” fuddy-duddy.

When you post video blogs like this one, defending the “little guy,” and then make paid promotional items for a company that has done far worse than the telcos you’re criticizing, it goes beyond the question of whether you can be trusted as a reporter, a blogger, or even a source of commentary. It makes you come across as a hypocrite, or maybe just someone who co-opts the cause of the moment to advance your own career.

It also could make viewers wonder, in retrospect, “Gee, I wonder whether Craigslist and Google paid for product placements in that segment.”

Your replies to the people criticizing your actions make light of the situation. They shrug them off under the pretense that you’re “new media” and a blogger. Then you going back on that statement saying, well, you don’t really even want to do this, you just want to do whatevz!

Those icky “rules” of boring old journalism you allude to — then allude to yourself not having to abide by them — were not put into place gratuitously. They’re there to ensure the public’s trust, the reporter’s integrity, and define the difference between facts, opinions, and paid content. The form of media may change, but the checks and balances put in place to ensure the public’s getting a fair shake still apply.

Your replies suggest that you’re simply interested in being a celebrity. If that’s the case, stop committing “acts of journalism.” You owe it to the people who respect your viewpoint and see you as a commentator rather than a pretty girl making Web videos. You also owe it to journalists who have to abide by those boring old rules.

The best thing about blogging is that it gives a voice to people who would otherwise not be heard. It makes anyone’s views instantly and easily accessible worldwide. You could argue that blogs fell victim to their own success (advertising, oversaturation, and rehashing/linking to what other blogs have already posted). Before that, they were pure. They were a refreshing and more heartfelt alternative than traditional media outlets.

Blogging, by nature, is anti-establishment. New media is anti-establishment. Doing paid spots for DuPont is about as “The Man” as you can get. I’m not sure how that fits into your description of yourself as a new media proponent.

So, it’s not the advertising itself, it’s the product people have a problem with?

[...] Videoblogger Amanda Condon has done an intriguing videoblogging ad deal with Dupont to promote its bullet-proof Kevlar material with “Dupont Science Stories.” The clips are produced with a mini-documentary style and run about two-minutes in length (see below). Selected blogs are paid to host the clips — just like ads — which are distributed by Brightcove and Federated Media. Other blogs can post the clips if they like, but they don’t get paid. The clips are cross-posted on YouTube and hosted on a Dupont microsite, stories.dupont.com. All in all, this is a very innovative way for Dupont to use the viral nature of video to achieve broad distribution with a new audience. Smart, and I bet there’s a new ad model emerging here. Meanwhile, some folks have brought up the potential conflict of interest issue here, since Amanda hosts a videoblog for ABCNews.com. But hey, is she really a journalist? “ABC and HBO both approved the DuPont spots,” Amanda explains. “And under the ‘blogger’ title, which is what I am, hello? I am not subject to the ‘rules’ traditional journalists have to follow.” [...]

Brittney,

It’s probably a combination of both. Any sort of advertisement by a journalist or TV personality will be viewed as an endorsment by readers/viewers. Endorsing Dove appears more harmless than endorsing a chemical company. Remember, perception is reality right?

Was the dove spot ever published? Of course now Amanda posts a link to Dupont on her 5 things post for today.

My issue is simple – she is what she wants to be to fit the role. For example, she is a journalist when she needs to be. A blogger when she needs to be. etc.

You rock Amanda, I saw the Sunday post and only the first video worked for me at the time, but I went back yesterday afternoon and saw the rest of them, they were great. Super fun to watch, you always are Amanda.

*Was the dove spot ever published?*

Yes.

Morty, you dating Amanda?

[...] Videoblogger Amanda Congdon has done an intriguing videoblogging ad deal with Dupont to promote its bullet-proof Kevlar material with “Dupont Science Stories.” The clips are produced with a mini-documentary style and run about two-minutes in length (see below). Selected blogs are paid to host the clips — just like ads — which are distributed by Brightcove and Federated Media. Other blogs can post the clips if they like, like we’ve done below, but we don’t get paid. The clips are cross-posted on YouTube and hosted on a Dupont microsite, stories.dupont.com. All in all, this is a very innovative way for Dupont to use the viral nature of video to achieve broad distribution with a new audience. Smart, and I bet there’s a new ad model emerging here. Meanwhile, some folks have brought up the potential conflict of interest issue here, since Amanda hosts a videoblog for ABCNews.com. But hey, is she really a journalist? “ABC and HBO both approved the DuPont spots,” Amanda explains. “And under the ‘blogger’ title, which is what I am, hello? I am not subject to the ‘rules’ traditional journalists have to follow.” [...]

[...] Many smart people will contemplate what this means for journalism, blogging, transparency, and corporate advertising. In this case, I think it’s pretty obvious that Congdon is oblivious to why this is (depending on your approach) unethical, wrong, or benign (I discount the fanboys commentary, “You get paid, girl!” as being way too biased). Check her blog for explanation and comments. Snippets Isn’t that what new media is all about? Breaking the rules? Setting our own? I see nothing wrong with doing commercials, which is what they, quite transparently, are. If DuPont had tried to pass them off as authentic, homegrown videos, yeah, then that would’ve been wrong (and, of course, I would never have agreed to the project if that was the plan). As Sarah Silverman would say, “I’d do it again”. In a heartbeat. Bring on the endorsements! [...]

I drive race cars. I heart Nomex.

Chuck, a comeuppance? In what way? I think things are going great and I’m proud of the ads. DuPont is VERY happy with the results. My sites are getting loads of traffic and you know I don’t mind the attention.

I still don’t agree with the Edwards videoblogging work you did. But I respect and understand your opinion on the subject (honestly– not just saying that).

I see a difference between getting paid to *cover* something, and getting paid for a commercial spot. No one complained about the Dove ad I did while at ABCNews. This is just something the media has latched onto and sensationalized, when really I’ve been doing commercials throughout my career. But it’s to my advantage and DuPont’s advantage really, so this is a win-win.

we know you love the attention.

dupont is kind of evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#Controversies

no wonder we all have cancer.

http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/11/dupont_poisoned.php

oh yeah and from a more ‘credible’ (dare i say) source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10082924/

hey ryanne, thanks for stopping by- can you re-post the second link in your first comment? I got a 404 message.

oh btw, I’m having my monthly video chat session on Paltalk.com tomorrow (Thursday) at 9pm ET/6pm PT if anyone wants to join in and chat about these issues.

check out this link for more info on the chat: http://amandacongdon.com/blog/?p=57

You have to have a pc, though. But you DON’T have to have a webcam… you can just join in by watching and participate as a text-only guest.

Hey Amanda,

Regarding this line you wrote:

>

I never saw the Dove ads, but to me they’d raise the same concerns as the DuPont ads. So…yeah…I probably would have raised an eyebrow about them back then, too. The fact that DuPont has a terrible enviro (etc.) record really isn’t the issue as far as your credibility is concerned. Doing any ad, except perhaps something for charity, undercuts your credibility as both a journalist *and* a blogger.. I think in the short term you may gain from this—more hits, more money, etc.—but in the long run, it’s not so good….(and I write this as a fan, by the way).

Ms. Congdon,

When you feel compelled to deny you are a thing, it usually means you are that thing in the minds of those around you.

Nixon had to deny he was a crook exactly because everyone believed he was a crook. Because, to a great extent, his power was a function of public perception, there was a point at which his actual guilt or innocence was irrelevant.

Now you are defending yourself. It is bad luck that you are in an industry and in a position in which – from a certain angle – your success is a direct result of public perception. Your defense against various questions regarding your choices. the actual ethical value of those choices, even your original intentions and past history in commerical projects are all irrelevant to an extent. That is, you’ve managed to expand your trade and income at the clear cost of what may prove to be a serious public relations battle. The comments above, even if small in number, are proof enough that you have misjudged certain things – certain things important to certain people.

It’s not really my place to critique as I am a writer who will write what I am paid to write. Nor is it my place to propose advice. Rather, I just want to say that your post above and your responses below show a certain lack of grace – a failure to conceed a lost battle – that you’d do best to outgrow.

Finally, I think no one would have a problem with whatever you did if you offered yourself as an entertainer, a “personality.” Blogger is a hollow title. It means nothing and, frankly, hasn’t applied to anything you’ve been doing. Consider, no one gives Larry King any problems when he plugs grape juice. Then again, no one expects Larry King to be anything other than Larry King.

G

“Personality” might be more fitting– you may be right– but I’m certainly a blogger. I blog 5 days a week, and videoblog at least 2 days a week.

People I greatly respect are saying good things:

BusinessWeek’s Blogspotting

Lost Remote

AdRants

This is an exciting time. Controversy always comes when groundwork is being laid out. And the debate is a good thing.

Amanda,

All due respect, I checked out those links and, while they all say that this is good for DuPont, only “Lost Remote” even mentions the issues raised in this thread, and even then only in the most inane way.

Also, having now watched one of the DuPont spots, I think it’s troubling that it’s filmed in the style of your video blogs—it’s a bit like having Katie Couric do an ad for Geritol while sitting at an anchor’s desk. DuPont is clearly trying to present you as a journalist, albeit a non-traditional one. Which is smart for them, not so great for you.

I agree that the debate is good, but your statement that “controversy always comes when groundwork is being laid out” is bizarre. Groundwork—a foundation?—is not always a good thing; sometimes precedents are just wrong.

I can understand why HBO was okay with this, but I’m surprised that ABC permitted it. After all, you might say you’re not a journalist, but you are on ABCNews.com, so ABC apparently does.

And look, if DuPont offered me some huge amount of money to make these things, I might take it too. But you are too smart not to take more seriously the issues raised by doing so.

I thought Chuck’s points were rather interesting. I think the fact that an element of Amanda’s online persona involves criticising others when they get into these muddy waters, leaves her much more open to legitimate criticism.

Its completely puzzling to me that Amanda see’s no issue whatsoever here, and Im now starting to wonder if she has any concept at all of credibility, or of protecting her own image so that she doesnt alienate her entire base of support.

Having said all that, Ive always thought of Amanda as an actress more than anything else, did a TV commercial and music video long before ever vlogging if I recall correctly? And as far as Im concerned, someone is only a sellout if they sell their own principals short. And as it seems rather difficult to see what Amanda’s moral stance is with this issue (beyond the ‘everything I do is ok’ type thought process), I cant call her a sellout.

Wheres Bill Hicks when you need him?

Wow, looks like you’ve got a genuine maelstrom on your hands.

Or not.

I must say, the most amusing posts I have seen here are from the self-described “old media journalists.” C’mon, guys, if you have slept on the city desk couch even once in your life you have surely encountered editors who bury or tweak stories to keep the advertisers happy, and unlike Amanda, they do so while maintaining their veneer of being “objective,” or “fair and balanced” or whatever they’re calling it these days when your prejudices are lined up with those of your target audience.

I have had stories under my byline rewritten to say the exact opposite of what I knew to be the truth, by an editor with an ax to grind or who already had gotten so many threatening phone calls from the big ad buyer up the street that he was actively censoring the news to keep him happy. That sort of thing pisses me off a lot worse than what Amanda did. She’s wearing a lot of freakin’ hats. (And a very stylish bulletproof vest, I might add.) That we have not yet sorted out how that works is a sign of the times. I see no effort to disguise what she’s doing or to fool anyone. So despite memories of Bhopal and some other malfeasance on DuPont’s part over the years, I don’t see this as an issue.

But that’s just one old-media refugee’s opinion.

You’ve just lost a fan, Amanda. And not for doing the commercials but for your replies here. You have no integrity and a huge ego. That’s a dangerous combination!

Congrats, Amanda. I loved the work. I see no problem with you doing it and I don’t understand those that do. Keep up the great work.

Amanada,

Thanks for responding – but even your response concerns me. I mean, I was up at that hour searching the internet because I ran out of my favored sleep aid and I could comment as I have no public persona to fuck up. You, who has leveraged her career on perception, answered me back at – what – past three am (I have a comment on this on Gawker).

If I knew you – which I don’t – I’d tell you to not respond to these comments at all and certainly to get your face out of your comments and certainly not to answer back at the ass-crack of the morning. Being a journo/perso/blogger may pull you all directions at once, but 3am is a tad silly.

Put down the blackberry and pick up one of my faves Gans’ “Deciding What’s News.” ( a great sourcebook) If you can’t get that – try Fonesca’s “Bury Me Standing” – a wholly emotional take on a somewhat obscure international issue whose method could have many mirrors in blog reportage – if anyone wanted to move in that direction. Instead of reacting you could be using any free time you have to expand your vision of the rare position you hold. Right now, you may be going great places – but to the outside observer all this professional navel gazing makes you look like a top – moving a lot, but going no where.

Gabe

Gabe

I’m on Pacific time and I stay up till at least midnight most nights. I don’t think that’s weird for a 25 year old.

And I’m certainly NOT going to stop responding to comments.

[...] Whoa, now. That’s some harsh blowback. And hardly warranted, since no one really “caught” Congdon doing anything. She posted a link herself to the DuPont ad days before the HuffPo and Radar articles. Congdon defends herself at her personal blog with this bit: ABC and HBO both approved the DuPont spots. And under the “blogger” title, which is what I am, hello? I am not subject to the “rules” traditional journalists have to follow. [...]

I think you were okay with Dove…but DuPont has such heavy military connections. And The Military is covered by the media. And blogger,journalist,vlogger,whatever – you are the media.

Having said that, “paid journalism” has always confused me. ABC couldn’t pay Monica Lewinsky – yet Barbara Walters, the crew,staff, and everyone at their stations were paid for being part of the interview. Yet were peopple tuning in because “Jeff was the head gaffer” ? So they reject “paid journalism”…then made a heck of a lot of money putting monica on for free.

Good luck…I feel ABC is about to sacrifice you .

[...] Amanda defends herself: ABC and HBO both approved the DuPont spots. And under the “blogger” title, which is what I am, hello? I am not subject to the “rules” traditional journalists have to follow. [...]

I think people are coming down way too harsh on Amanda. Keep in mind that she IS a blogger for ABC News and in general. I think that gives her a little more freedom than a news anchor or senior journalist.

Do I think it was a good decision to do what she did? Probably not, but her personality has not changed since RocketBoom, and she should probably be taken as seriously as she was back then as well. I personally enjoy her humor and reporting, but I always have the salt shaker nearby when watching or reading her blogs.

Is someone that is clearly one part comedian, worth this much energy criticizing? Gabe seriously, you are spending way too much effort trying make a point and sound clever, when it doesn’t really apply to the situation. Watch Amanda’s video blog and try to tell me why she should be taken as seriously as a network news anchor during her reporting (and try to overlook the bare desk, open laptop and the temporary back-drop).

And midnight for a 25 year-old is not out of the norm

Herein, a cautionary tale of willful self-destruction.

AmandaCongdon.com Dec. 14, 2006: “You are witnessing 100% of my authentic voice.”

AmandaCongdon.com March 20, 2007: “Bring on the endorsements!”

Amanda, you can muster all the self-righteous jargon you like, about “new paradigms” and “infotainmercials” and “acts of journalism” and the rest. The bottom line is, you sold your voice to the highest bidder. You see nothing wrong with doing it, and would do it again “in a heartbeat.” In the words of George Bernard Shaw, “We’ve already established what you are, ma’am. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

You write “I think what they [DuPont] contribute to the world outweighs the damage they’ve done in the past.” Is that your ABC NEWS voice speaking, or your DuPont voice? And when you interview Barack Obama, or report on issues such as the environment (as ABC NEWS has said publicly it would like you to do) … will those be “acts of journalism,” or part of the DuPont “act” again?

Amanda, you can no more carve your voice into “acts of journalism” and “acting” for DuPont than an accountant can separate “acts of accounting” from “acts of manipulation.”

You are what you are. ABC NEWS will soon be forced by its own journalists, who know the difference between a reporter and a shill, to acknowedge the reality as well. And so, just a few months after promising the world “100% of my authentic voice,” it will be gone.

It is a real pity for you and your viewers that you do not recognize what you have done to yourself.

I always share 100% of my authentic voice on ABCNews.com, amandacongdon.com, and Starring.AmandaCongdon.com. I wouldn’t hesitate to cover a DuPont scandal in the future.

If commercial is marked as one, and I disclose the fact it is one, I don’t see a problem. No acts of manipulation took place.

The real question is: does my work belong on the abcnews site or somewhere else one abc.com. It’s a hybrid of sorts, as is the work of many videobloggers.

I dont feel like trolling through the ABC News site to answer this, but i guess the question would be, do the other people who present information on the ABC News website, and in particular, the video section, get paid to produce commercials for companiese? Again, i dont know the answer, but lets assume all of them do, and if so, then i don’t see any problem with what you are doing.

But, lets take the flip side, and say that you are the only one of all the people in that section who both presents information on the ABC News website, and again in particular the video section. Now i am sure you could understand if that was the case, then it would be reasonable to assume that you would fall under the same guidlines/boundaries as the others, who would be presumed to be impartial reporters of the news.

Someone want to help me out and tell me the answer?

[...] Eines der aktuellsten: Infotainmercials, ein Konstrukt aus Information, Entertainment und Commercials. As I mentioned on my blog Sunday evening, I made these little “infotainmercials” for DuPont. I love how that ridiculous word spread like wildfire… that was my intention. A little experiment that WORKED. [Amanda Congdon] [...]

[...] Congdon herself mocks or atleast laughs at the whole thing in her blog. ABC and HBO both approved the DuPont spots. And under the “blogger” title, which is what I am, hello? I am not subject to the “rules” traditional journalists have to follow. [...]

[...] …durch Blog-Skandale. Ulkige Worte werden da benutzt. War es bei der Edelman-Sache das Wort “Brouhaha” (Aufruhr, Tumult), liest man gerade in den Diskussionen um die Image-Videos von Ex-Rocketboom Amanda Congdon für Dupont (z.b. hier und hier) oft das Wort “Kerfuffle”. “Aufregung, Lärm, Durcheinander” laut LEO. Und: “A brouhaha is larger than a kerfuffle.” Urban Dictionary. Abgelegt unter: Rumours on the Internets, Blogs Geschrieben von: dom [...]

[...] • ABC says Amanda Congdon is not subject to the rules traditional journalists have to follow. Because she’s a freelancer. With a really nice rack. And a totally creepy disembodied hand! [...]