Comments on: Fake TV news widespread and undisclosed http://strivepr.com/2006/04/09/fake-tv-news-widespread-and-undisclosed/ experts in digital PR and social media Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:01:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: sherrilynne http://strivepr.com/2006/04/09/fake-tv-news-widespread-and-undisclosed/comment-page-1/#comment-45 sherrilynne Wed, 12 Apr 2006 06:15:29 +0000 http://strivepr.com/wordpress/?p=24#comment-45 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? 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?

]]> By: Cindy http://strivepr.com/2006/04/09/fake-tv-news-widespread-and-undisclosed/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Cindy Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:42:33 +0000 http://strivepr.com/wordpress/?p=24#comment-43 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:-) 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:-)

]]>