Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 30, 2006.
Any b'caster that's using a VNR w/o a clear disclaimer/disclourse of its origins deserves to get fined as much as possible by the FCC. For those not aware of VNR's they are basically press releases, but in video form. So a b'caster using a VNR w/o mentioning where it came from would be akin to a news paper printing a press release from Apple w/o ever mentioning that what you are reading is a press release from Apple, not a news story.
EDIT: The thread title is a little sensationalistic and misleading. The blame is on the stations for not properly handling the VNRs, not on the people/corporations/governments/nonprofits/etc., who produced the VNRs (pretty much any good sized organization is going to have some sort of press kit w/video material).
as i almost always do, it's lifted straight from the article's headline.
as far as the blame falling on the shoulders of the media, i mostly agree with you. but i have a hard time believing some of the fed-produced stuff was distributed to, say, fox stations w/o the wink and the nod.
What if they're printing only barely reprocessed press releases, as so many "news" stories already are? The TV stations running these VNRs are simply dropping the pretense of journalism, one most of them never really earned in the first place. I'm not excusing the TV stations, but I'm certainly not going let government agencies off the hook for producing VNRs.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was. But it's still the b'casters responsibility to ignore the wink & nod (poor blinkin, always left out), live up to their ethical standards and serve the best interests of the public (as they are supposed to do per their b'casting license).
I don't blame Ronco for having about a bazillion different informercials, but I'd blame the local b'caster if they presented a Ronco informercial as a real show.
I know everyone here pretty much looks for any reason under the sun to b*tch about the current administration, but there's no need to grasp at straws. There's enough real problems to go around.
VNRs get released to b'casters w/proper disclosure + Some b'casters edit out that disclosure and misrepresent the VNR to the public = VNR producer is the great satan. What?
Press releases (including VNRs) are as common as dirt and just about as old. It's not like either thing is some new, dastardly form of sneak thievery to fool the public.
Surely the point is that governments shouldn't be doing this.
hang on -- when we're talking about the state department getting an iraqi-american to say he supports the invasion, then releasing that to look like a journalistic effort, then it being aired w/o attribution, i have to think the intent was to fool the public.
what about the bush administration would make you think otherwise?
"new" is a keyword in what you quoted that you might have over looked. Of course a press release is going to push the releaser's product, agenda, company, ect.,. That's why I'm surprised people are going, "Oh sweet Jesus! They are using VNR's!?!?!" WTF? D'uh. Them and everyone else issue press releases and VNRs left and right. Have been for decades (or centuries for the non-A/V variety). And everyone knows they are largely BS which is why there is disclosure and why these things aren't supposed to be replied up as accurate news sources.
Again, if the VNR producer followed all the proper guidelines, but the b'caster did not (and actually edited the content) and misrepresented the info to the public how is it the VNR producers fault?
Now, if VNRs are being supplied w/o proper disclosure and/or the creators of the VNRs are bribing the TV stations to alter the VNRs then that's another story. But I don't see any mention of that in the story linked in the OP. Unless I'm missing something the main point of that story is of suspected misconduct by some TV stations in regards to misrepresenting VNRs to the public as actual news events.
You are repeatedly and conveniently ignoring the salient fact here, which is that your GOVERNMENT is pushing out this stuff. Nobody cares what the corporations are doing: advertising is not run on an ethical basis. Government, however, should not be making fake news in pursuit of its partisan agenda at taxpayers' expense.
Just for the sake of argument, what if it wasn't fake? What if they found the one Iraqi who was happy for the war, and filmed her?
If that's the case, where is the line between presenting things in their best light, and an outright lie?
Lethal is right that you will never get VNR producers, even government ones, to be as harsh on themselves as journalists, or indeed any outsider, could. However, I'm not convinced these weren't distributed with the winkin, blinkin, and the nod. There's too much at stake for the media companies, legislatively speaking, to want to piss off what is, by all accounts, a highly vindictive administration. Arms can be twisted to get these 'legitimate' VNRs into newsrooms with the understanding that the disclaimer not be shown.
What it sounds like though, is that there is some level of secrecy that cannot be breached about these - I heard the investigative group was going to need more proof to actually make a legal case. If true, that is not a good sign, as the Bush administration has shown repeatedly that they are big fans of secret moves that the public cannot know about, usually because of some 'state secret'. So if there is a layer of secrecy protection here, I naturally assume that it is being exploited by someone.
Come on, there's no need to spin my question. I've seen plenty of press releases reprinted almost verbatim as "news stories" to know that it's a common practice. In fact I've already said so. It's the kind of lazy journalism that TV stations are particularly notorious for practicing. My question is, do we want our government to be taking advantage of this fact of life to plant government-favorable news stores in the media? Please feel free to confine your answer to my question.
Hmmm half second of nipple = total and utter FCC crackdown. Government & Corporation propaganda = no comment.
I wonder who the FCC is here to $erve
"Fake News Under Bill Clinton"
Not to bash Bill (what's the point now?), but to point out that VNRs didn't originate as some vile plot by Karl Rove... And at least our TV news isn't blatantly owned by the government, as it is in many countries (including, to an extent, our allies across the pond).
Like Lethal, I blame the news directors. TV news has been going downhill at least since GMA went on the air. Add in rigged exploding cars and Dan Rather's memogate, no wonder many people get their "news" from Comedy Central.
Which "allies" would those be?
OK, "friends"? "Nations with some mutual interests to our own?" "Nations we haven't fought a war against recently?" (There are still one or two of those, right?)
Are you saying the BBC is a mouthpiece for the Blair government?
Would you care to name a few?
The organization, Reporters without Borders lists the US as #17 and the UK # 22 on their Press Freedom Index
And I'm sure the media folks had legislation pending before the government when Clinton was president. It's not that Bush is doing it - it's that it's done at all.
Don't forget Jayson Blair, and Judith Miller, or the numerous times that FOX reported that WMDs were found in Iraq. I blame the news directors, but I also blame people who exploit the public trust by producing 'newsy' items they know are likely to get mistaken for an actual news report.
This is, at best, a specious argument. You can't really make this equivalency work, and even if you could, it would be no better than a tangential argument. Why is it so difficult to address the main question?
So are you people saying that no good news can come from Iraq and if it does its made up? I think the problem with the media is they only choose to report the bad stuff because thats what gives them better ratings.
Perhaps you'd like to the list all the good things that have come from Iraq. As with any long term military intervention, the longer things go on the less good news can come from there, that is no surprise.
buscho did its best in the beginning with embedded reporters and banning al Jazeera but now with the country in chaos there's little they or anyone else can do to put a positive spin on what's happening. Inevitably, whenever someone tries to totally control the flow of information a backlash will occur.
(Note to self: question evaded, again)
what would that question be?