VNRs are back ...

Actually, they never went away. VNRs are Video News Releases, which are video versions of press releases, i.e., defined as "video clips that are indistinguishable from traditional news clips and are sometimes screened unedited by television stations without the identification of the original producers or sponsors, who are commonly corporations, government agencies, or non-governmental organizations." They're better described as "fake news"--because that's what they are. (Here's the Wikipedia entry on news releases and VNRs, and a backgrounder piece on the practice by David Folkenflik from last year's "All Things Considered" on NPR.) Those of you who think that TV news produces all its own material are in for a shock. A lot of it they pick up off the rack for free.

We're now getting a better sense of just how widespread this practice is. Last week the Center for Media and Democracy reported on the extent to which news stations are using this "fake news" in their regular nightly reports. The New York Times reports that "Many television news stations, including some from the nation's largest markets, are continuing to broadcast reports as news without disclosing that the segments were produced by corporations pitching new products." The Times report notes that although television news directors denied that VNRs were being used to any extent, CMD assembled strong evidence of such use among dozens of stations across the country.

The report said none of the stations had disclosed that the segments were produced by publicists representing companies like General Motors, Capital One and Pfizer. The center also said that many of the 69 stations took steps to blend the fake segments into their news broadcasts. Some had their news reporters or anchors read scripts supplied by corporations, the report said, and many had altered screen graphics to include the station's logo. The report said that a few stations had introduced publicists as if they were their on-air reporters. Only a handful of stations added any independently gathered information or videotape, it said. The 69 stations reach about half the population of the United States.

David Folkenflik at NPR quotes Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the CMD, who tracked local TV news use of VNRs, finding "dozens of stations passing them off as actual news reports." Says Farestta: “'It was pretty amazing to me, personally, how willing TV newsrooms appear to be to keep all the product mentions, all of the obvious promotional aspects of a video news release . . . It’s a pretty damning look, to be honest, at television newsrooms.'” (Click here for the NPR audio piece, including a segment where Folkenflik "plays a local TV report from WBFS in Florida and the video news release it's based on... word-for-word copy.")

This might all seem depressingly familiar to those who keep a close eye on what our nation's pennypinching local news broadcasters are up to. A year ago VNRs were also in the news--though that time it wasn't corporate fake news that was the issue; rather it was fake news produced by the government. The Bush administration has been a big fan of VNRs. Last April the New York Times and other news outlets reported extensively on the aggressive media policy pursued by the Bush administration--a policy that focuses on the federal government's penchant for

a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

So VNRs have been around for a long time. News stations love them because they cost nothing. And most viewers don't notice the difference--because local stations do their utmost to cover up the fakey origins of their fake news. But there's a price to be paid. And here's the thing. I don't like it when corporate interests or the government produce fake news (although it's even worse when the government uses taxpayer dollars to do it.) But at least if news organizations are going to use such material, they should state clearly where it comes from. But 9 times out of 10, they don't. They want to preserve the illusion that they are creating and presenting this "news" on their own. This is a basic issue of ethics for TV news station managers. Stations need to accept that they must acknowledge where they're getting this material from. It's inconceivable to me that any station manager worth her salt wouldn't do this.

As for the federal government, as I said last year: If it's so intent on producing this propaganda then they should put it on a government-run TV service and call it by its nice name: public diplomacy. At least then no-one would be under any illusions about where the information was coming from. And btw, the government already does this for people overseas. Government-funded instruments of propaganda/public diplomacy have been around for decades. You may have heard of them: Voice of America; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and TV/Radio Marti, among others.