[NYTimes] News or Public Relations? For Bush It's a Blur

I would hope the Big Three and PBS uses their own production team for domestic affairs. I think the repackaging is done mostly with regional and local stations.

The thing about Max's article is that it'll continue the trend where the slant of the news will depend on the few sources left. Maybe that's why political blogs are popular. It's regurgitation the way each person wants it.

When the public catches on, you'll see overzealous station managers pruning articles to have their own unique stance. Maybe even in response to blogs. You can't expect every manager to have training in journalism ethics or to adhere to them.

It's like that joke where you will see the same clip of Osama firing that AK-47 and terrorists in training climbing those monkey bars. What exactly is going on over there? I don't think that Vietnam coverage was more expensive than the costs of today's international coverage. We definitely get less despite the media outlets promises of more.

 

http://www.instapundit.com/

A LOT OF PEOPLE are noticing this story from the New York Times about prepackaged fake news from the Bush Administration. But if you read the whole thing, to coin a phrase, you come upon this passing acknowledgement:


The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts.


Funny, but I don't remember much of a stink about it when it happened during the Clinton Administration. However, Peter Morgan and I wrote about the practice in The Appearance of Impropriety and you can read a slightly-different version online here:


Those who followed the uproar of Senator Biden’s speech, or for that matter the more recent flap over Joe Klein’s false denial of authorship with regard to the novel Primary Colors, might have been surprised to know how little of the content in their daily newspaper or newscast actually originated with the producers and editors.

News stories, to a degree seldom appreciated by the general public, are often the product of press releases generated by trade associations and interest groups. Often those releases are converted into news stories by the simple expedient of placing a reporter's byline on top. Television news stories (especially those appearing on local stations) are often supplied fully produced, with blank spots left for the local news reporter to insert commentary that makes the story appear his or her own. Opinion columns are often "placed" by businesses or interest groups to support a particular point of view -- often, they are even written by those groups and then run with the byline of distinguished individuals, or even regular commentators, who have barely read the piece, much less written it. Indeed, the Sasso "attack video" was something of this sort, for the journalists who broke the Biden/Kinnock story did not at first disclose their source.

Most readers and viewers have small appreciation of how little of what they see on television or read in newspapers and magazines is original with the reporters, editors, and producers involved. Yet in fact news organizations are highly dependent on predigested information from public relations firms, government officials, and advocacy groups, information that is often passed on to their readers and viewers with no indication that it is not original. That problem is not new, but it has gotten worse in recent years. . . .

Although a "video news release" is still more expensive to produce than a standard paper press release, they have become much more common. According to a recent poll, seventy-five percent of TV news directors reported using video news releases at least once per day.

These releases, with their high quality images and slick production, are produced by companies and groups who want to get their message across, but don't want simply to purchase advertising time. They are designed so that television producers at local stations or (less often) major networks, can simply intersperse shots of their own reporters or anchors (often reading scripted lines provided with the release) to give the impression that the story is their own. Their use has been the subject of considerable controversy within the journalistic profession, although some commentators have claimed that they are used no more often, or misleadingly, than written press releases are used by the print media.

A recent scandal in Britain involved network use of a video news release produced by the group Greenpeace that some considered misleading. But of course for every video news release, or VNR as they are called in the trade, that comes from an environmental group there are hundreds that come from businesses or government organizations. Though a keen eye can usually spot a VNR (hint: the subject matter wouldn't otherwise be news, and it usually involves experts and locales far from the station that airs it) most viewers probably believe that today’s story on cell-phone safety or miracle bras is just another product of the news program's producers – and hence, implicitly backed by the news people’s public commitment to objective journalism. The truth, however, is different.

It is fair to say that the wholesale use of others' work is a major part of modern journalism. But news officials are quick to distinguish that from plagiarism. In a mini-scandal at the San Diego Tribune, a reporter's story was cancelled when editors noticed that it looked very much like a story that had already appeared elsewhere. At first, presumably, it was thought that the story had been taken from the other publication. Then it turned out that both stories were simply near-verbatim versions of a press release. According to the Tribune's deputy editor, that wasn't plagiarism. "If you look up the definition of plagiarism, it is the unauthorized use of someone's material. When someone sends you a press packet, you're entitled to use everything in there."


Follow the link, if you want more, including a quote from Daniel Boorstin demonstrating that fake news goes back a long way. Suddenly, however, it's controversial. Perhaps if "real" news were, well, better, it would be harder to pass off the fake stuff . . . .

 

I honestly didn't know about it from Clinton's administration until now. I can't stand that he did it. Clinton should have been slammed for it.

But, Clinton's whitehouse wasn't also guilty of paying reporters to write favorable stories about their policies. Clinton's whitehouse also didn't arrange for press passes for a fake reporter in order to toss up soft ball questions to the President.

So Clinton's whitehouse is obviously guilty, and it should be noted. Bush's whitehouse has guilt that goes beyond what Clinton's whitehouse has, and that should be noted as well.

 

I honestly didn't know about it from Clinton's administration until now. I can't stand that he did it. Clinton should have been slammed for it.

This is true. I agree. We should stop this business of blatant propaganda and fake news. It doesn't make any diference if it is the Democrats or the Republicans. (Never find TJ and the dittoheads saying that).

President Bush often speaks of democracy and freedom. A deliberately and secretly misinformed electorate, voting on the basis of the fake info they are inputting, is not what people normally think of when talking about "democracy" and "freedom".

As the conervative Instapundit, trying it best to spin for Bush, acknowleges "this problem is not new, but it has gotten worse in recent years."

This is not just another partisian issue.

 

Has it gotten worse? Check this out, from the New York Times...


March 16, 2005
EDITORIAL

And Now, the Counterfeit News

The Bush administration has come under a lot of criticism for its attempts to fob off government propaganda as genuine news reports. Whether federal agencies are purchasing the services of supposedly independent columnists or making videos extolling White House initiatives and then disguising them as TV news reports, that's wrong. But it is time to acknowledge that the nation's news organizations have played a large and unappetizing role in deceiving the public.

As documented this week in an article in The Times by David Barstow and Robin Stein, more than 20 federal agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, now create fake news clips. The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first four years on contracts with public relations firms, more than double the amount spent by the Clinton administration.

Most of these tapes are very skillfully done, including "interviews" that seem genuine and "reporters" who look much like the real thing. Only sophisticated viewers would easily recognize that these videos are actually unpaid commercial announcements for the White House or some other part of the government. Some of the videos clearly cross the line into the proscribed territory of propaganda, and the Government Accountability Office says at least two were illegally distributed.

But too many television stations run government videos anyway, without any hint of where they came from. And while some claim they somehow stumbled accidentally into this trap, it seems obvious that in most cases, television stations that are short on reporters, long on air time to fill and unwilling to spend the money needed for real news gathering are abdicating their editorial responsibilities to the government's publicity teams. Bush administration officials now insist that they carefully label any domestic releases as government handouts.

However disingenuous those assurances may be, in at least some cases the stations are the main culprits in the deception - as at the Fox affiliate in Memphis, where a station reporter narrated a State Department video, using the text that came with it. The Times also reported on a small central Illinois station that was so eager to snap up this low-cost filler that it asked the Agriculture Department to have its "reporter" refer to its morning show in his closing lines. The Times tracked station malpractice into bigger markets, like San Diego (the ABC affiliate) and Louisville, Ky. (the Fox affiliate).

If using pretend news is one of the ways these stations have chosen to save money, it's a false economy. If it represents a political decision to support President Bush, it will eventually backfire. This kind of practice cheapens the real commodity that television stations have to sell during their news hours: their credibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/16wed1.html?



The Bush Administration more than doubled the amount of money spent on this blatant act of governmental dishonesty, with it's attendant inexcusable use of the material by the media... inexcusable for those who don't insure the source is acknowledged, and inexcusable for the complete lack of professionalism a media outlet exhibited by passing off this propaganda as it's own news reports. It's another sign of the sickness pervading our society, when the government "creates" news stories it knows will be passed off as legitimate news, and a media so lazy and dishonest that it either can't figure out what is going on, or knows what is going on, but doesn't care, using the material without telling the public just what it is.




Keep D&D Civil!!

 

What our nation needs is an Al-Jazeera type news network that is independent.

 

I would just like to see one self proclaimed moderate, conservative or war supporter say that this is an important story.

At least as important as one faction in Lebanon having big-boobed girls riding on men's shoulders.

 

Come on glynch, both factions had that. The last one posted, it wasn't even possible to tell which faction she was supporting since both sides use the Labanese flag in their rallies.

 

Your dismissive comment is really cute.

I find it amusing that you even got your dismissive comment wrong. Since the topic is about the NY Times article, why are you commenting about the Post? Nevermind, don't bother.

 

Have you seen "Control Room"? Interesting flick. I loved how during the beginning of the war, Rumsfeld is accusing AJ for being pro-Sadaam and the Iraqui Information guy is accusing AJ for being pro-American. No-win situation there.

 

An EXCELLENT movie

 

Yeah, it was a great film. I've seen it twice, and would watch it again if I could. It is odd that I would watch a documentary time after time, but it was that interesting. It really is a freedom of the press situation for those guys. The people at Al Jazeera talk about the perspective they are reporting from. If there was a truly independent news channel like that of a U.S. audience it would be remarkable.

 

White House to agencies: Ignore GAO's ruling on 'illegal' TV news releases

Ken Herman
Cox News Service
Mar. 15, 2005 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The White House, intent on continuing to crank out "video news releases" that look like television news stories, has told government agency heads to ignore a Government Accountability Office memo criticizing the practice as illegal propaganda.

In a memo on Friday, Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the lawyers the White House depends on disagree with the GAO's conclusions.

Accompanying Bolten's memo was a letter from Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, who said video news releases "are the television equivalent of the printed press release."

"They can be a cost-effective means to distribute information through local news outlets, and their use by private and public entities has been widespread since the early 1990s, including by numerous federal agencies," Bradbury said.

Comptroller General David Walker of the GAO said Monday that his agency is "disappointed by the administration's actions" in telling agency heads to ignore the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

"This is not just a legal issue, it's also an ethical matter," Walker said. "The taxpayers have a right to know when the government is trying to influence them with their own money."

Bradbury's memo said video news releases are legal and legitimate as long as they don't "constitute advocacy for any particular position or view."

The GAO, in a Feb. 17 memo to agency heads, said its review of video news releases distributed to television stations by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy showed violations of federal law barring the use of government money for propaganda. The GAO said, "Television-viewing audiences did not know that stories they watched on television news programs about the government were, in fact, prepared by the government."

Giving no indication that the administration would change its policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's very clear to the TV stations where they are coming from."

But the GAO, in the Feb. 17 memo from Walker, said that's not enough.

"They are intended to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public by independent television news organizations," Walker wrote. "To help accomplish this goal, these stories include actors or others hired to portray 'reporters' and may be accompanied by suggested scripts that television news anchors can use to introduce the story during the broadcast."

Former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, who held the job in the Clinton administration, said there was a "considerable amount of video news release activity" during those years, but much of it was limited to raw footage."