While today's front page NYT story misses the bleeding obvious about the "prepackaged news" brouhaha, it gets a lot of other stuff right. I'm sufficiently impressed by this reporting that instead of my usual sentence by sentence deconstruction of a news story, read this one uninterrupted and I'll see you on the other side.
While you're waiting...
OK, everyone back? Good. As previously noted here, and here, there are a lot of crocodile tears being shed about the news that stations run video news releases from the government, disguised as original reports on local news shows. The Times article does a good job at placing this story in context, but fails to land the knock-out punch.
As the Times says, VNRs are a "well established tool of public relations." That's an understatement. When my brethren in the PR cabal gather to plot new ways to manipulate the public (oh, we don't really, I was just testing you. Really) we often chuckle about how easy it is to get VNRs on the air, or for that matter, press releases printed, virtually unedited.
Let me connect three important dots in the Times story:
The fifth graf begins with a sentence that could not be applied to most business clients:
"Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute."
The government should be applauded for this transparency.
Business interests, on the other hand, set up front groups and hire independent producers to make and distribute video news releases, "b-roll" footage (film designed to be shown in the background while an on-air reporter reads the "news") and interviews.
Now, go back a sentence and read the end of graf four:
"At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source."
Finally, skip down towards the end, the next to last sub-head called "Meeting a Need"
A local news director is quoted:
"I don't want to use the word 'filler,' per se, but they meet a need we have."
Local TV stations aren't the only ones with "needs."
Big news networks have them too.
Hey CNN, I'm talking to you. You too Fox and all those NBC's:
Do you ever run footage supplied by business interests? Do story ideas ever begin with a contact from a public relations person? Do you read press releases?
See how complicated this is? The first accusation is pretty serious: stations and networks probably shouldn't let other voices into their news gathering process.
The second charge is a little ambiguous -- where's the line between appropriate publicity and media manipulation?
The third is absurd. Of course people read press releases.
What's the answer? Should all stories contain product labeling?
"This story contains 38% news reporting, 27% news releases, 13% wire service rewriting, 10% recycled information and 12% information gained over lunch, drinks or golf games with sources."
Or how about a new crawl for the news networks screens:
In order to better serve you, we have reduced the amount of original news we produce and increased our use of footage supplied by the subjects of our reporting. This gives us more money for Larry King and shows where people scream at each other.
Comments