Fake news
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies’ products.
Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.
The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.
This coupled with the adminstration’s production of propaganda news in Iraq is troubling.
Funny how they also slipped in faux news.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Sounds like the administration taking advantage of media laziness to get their message out. The article didn’t mention anything about the stations being paid.
Anyway, how would this differ, except in the form of media used, from a written press release that’s reprinted verbatim as news by a newspaper?
May 30th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
HL:
A written press release generally identifies itself as such. The problem with these administration-driven pieces as that they pretend to be something they’re not. They’re explicitly designed to look like news stories rather than government propaganda. And if I’m not mistaken, such propaganda may be illegal.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Tom, I’ve seen a few press releases (namely, anti-gun stuff) reported merely as news. I’m sure there are others. Heck, a station in Nashville got called out for doing it too.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Tom: press releases read much like news stories, which is by design, since reporters quickly transform them into news stories.
That’s not Bush doing that. That’s everyone doing that. Dems, Repubs, non-profits, corporations, you name it.
BTW, define “propaganda.” Be sure to define it in such a way that it doesn’t cover DNC press releases, Michael Moore films, or An Inconvenient Truth. 🙂
May 30th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Uncle:
And wherever it’s done, no matter by whom, it’s wrong.
Les:
Sorry, but that’s way different in kind. Everyone who sees a Michael Moore film knows that Michael Moore is the source. Same for DNC press releases, and even An Inconvenient Truth, although I’m not sure I’d chalk that last up as “propaganda.”
If I see the DNC or Michael Moore producing pieces for local news stations without identifying the pieces as such, I’ll call them on it immediately.
That said, I think much of the fault for this lies with the local affiliates: if they’re running “news pieces” that they did not produce, they need to explicitly identify who did produce it. To their credit, our local Fox affiliate does exactly that, saying “Fox News provided us with this report” or something like it.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Tom: who said the Bush administration didn’t identify themselves as the producers? I don’t see that anywhere in the article. As you said, it’s the affiliates fault for not disclosing that someone else produced this stuff, and giving credit.
But the same thing happens all the time with press releases. They aren’t always used whole, but that’s because it’s easy for a reporter to copy and paste snippets here and there and re-purpose text into a story, but don’t kid yourself. Lots of news stories start out as one-sided press releases.
May 31st, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Les:
who said the Bush administration didn’t identify themselves as the producers?
What cave have you been living in? “In Washington, Karen Ryan reporting.” With the clear implication that Karen Ryan is a journalist. Hell, the GAO even dubbed them illegal “covert propaganda.”
And while it’s largely the affiliate’s fault, it’s not exclusively their fault. It was, after all, the administration that produced these pieces to look just like news features. You can’t be so dense as to believe this was totally innocent on their part.
And again, I’m not trying to excuse reporters copying and pasting from press releases, but that’s still different in kind from republishing them verbatim while obscuring the fact that they’re press releases (or, worse, playing along and acting as though they’re actual news pieces).