Fake TV news widespread and undisclosed
This is the headline of a news release pushed to me by US-based Striver Rita Rich. It was issued jointly by an organisation called Freepress and the Center for Media and Democracy. It claims that “fake” TV news is widespread and undisclosed. It’s based on an investigation of 77 US local TV stations using VNRs, and they have filed a complaint with the FCC urging action.
Um….the words horse, bolt and barn door all spring to mind. Have these researchers not watched any television news for the past 25 years or more? Or read a consumer magazine? Or looked at a national, regional or local paper? People and organisations have been influencing news coverage since the birth of news media and, as the channels of communication have changed, so have the methods of influence.
The customer is king in all things commercial (and news publishing is a money making industry). The audience will dictate the quality of reporting it is willing to accept and people will vote with their feet if their needs and preferences are not met. This is Communications 101.
Media Orchard seems to agree and has listed some guidelines that television news directors may wish to follow. MO’s three simple rules are Journalism 101, and I believe that TV reporters generally do employ these principles.
Now, for the folks at Freepress and The Center for Media and Democracy, I’d like to point out irony of the news release announcing the study and the FCC complaint. This group disdains the use of VNRs…the NR bit standing for ‘news release’. Yet, they feel no compunction about issuing a news release of their own to try to gain media coverage for their issues. How does this differ from what they are complaining about? And, if you read their release, its content and tone is hardly “unbiased”; its verbiage contains evocative language (infiltrate, slipping in, propaganda, disguising, secretly…). I wonder if they’ll publish a report on the coverage this news release gets?
Filed under: public relations
Subscribe to our feed
Subscribe by Email
Having been on both sides of the VNR issue – as a reporter receiving them and as a producer sending them out – I think that like with everything else – the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
The fact that while this debate has resurfaced – it’s at least 20 years old. In the late 1980’s I was covering Senate hearings where Senator Edward Kennedy was blasting the use of news stations running VNRs.
The fact is that the reason VNRs were so popular is that they filled an important need for TV news. It gave reporters precious video and story ideas at a time when their stations were increasing their news programs from a half hour to two or three hours and cutting back on the resources (fewer crews) and thus the reporter’s and producer’s ability to fill those programs.
I think the difference between VNRs and press releases — at least back then – is that all reporters weren’t aware of who was really behind the VNRs. (Perhaps because they didn’t want to know). The better reporters and the better stations didn’t just run the VNRs – they used them as a base and then made their own phone calls – shot their own interviews and then took the video and maybe a soundbite and repackaged it. That’s harder and harder to do with fewer and fewer resources.
So, while it’s easy to blast the companies putting them out there – the reporters and the station owners themselves have to take responsibility when they try to cover news with little to no resources. It doesn’t work – and from all I’m hearing – it’s getting worse, not better. News departments were never supposed to make money for a station – they were supposed to cover the news – and programming (entertainment) was supposed to make the money. (Wow – now I really am sounding ancient:-)
Here’s an update to the story…The Center for Media and Democracy has sent out an email blast hailing the success of their study (and Strive Notes gets a mention, kinda)….
“Media regulators and real journalists have widely hailed our report. FCC Commissioner Adelstein called us “enterprising public interest advocates” and commended our report for its “vast array of evidence.” Major outlets
like the New York Times, PBS’s NOW, NPR’s Morning Edition and Bloomberg News
have covered the story. We’ve had 100 media hits since our report was
released last week, from mainstream and alternative media, and from bloggers
worldwide.”
Do you think I should explain the concept of irony to them?