[SimpleLife]

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News

By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Let the "truth" be known.

[bubblewrap]

Great an OP-ED piece about some insignifigant local new stations broadcast.

All news media is not to be trusted. All reporters are not to be trusted.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Great an OP-ED piece about some insignifigant local new stations broadcast.

All news media is not to be trusted. All reporters are not to be trusted.

YES! Especially the major broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) and cable (CNN) news outlets.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Great an OP-ED piece about some insignifigant local new stations broadcast.

All news media is not to be trusted. All reporters are not to be trusted.

I would actually go up a notch.

Trust no one.

Not even yourself. Actually, especially not yourself; you could be wrong one day and you wouldn't want to be caught that way by all the other wrong people out there, since they could actually reward you wrongfully for your own wrong doing.

[bubblewrap]

I've always owned up to my mistakes.

Reporters will make their own "news".
Reporting is about sterile facts not opinion.
Opinion belongs in reporting like botulism in lunchmeat.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
I've always owned up to my mistakes.

Reporters will make their own "news".
Reporting is about sterile facts not opinion.
Opinion belongs in reporting like botulism in lunchmeat.

Agreed, but here, we are talking about Public Relations agencies paid by the U.S. government to create "news" that put a very favorable light on what is happening in Iraq, and these are not identified as originating from your governement by the media outlet.

It is worse than just the subjectivity of reporters. It is government driven presentation of specific facts with the consequence of leading public opinion in a specific direction.

Other specialized distributors with specific objectives of information are in operation:

To correct lessons learned during the combat phase of Operation Enduring Freedom, the Coalition Forces Land Component Commander Lieutenant General David D. McKiernan initiated the acquisition of DVIDS. The system was supported and funded by the U.S. Army since all Public Affairs units in Afghanistan and Iraq were Army units; however, the intent is for the system to be used by all services of the Department of Defense.

Goals:

-The DVIDS hub coordinating interviews between media organizations and military units deployed in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom and offering a large number of products to national and military media organizations.
-Deployed Public Affairs units acquiring, producing and transmitting high-quality products to fulfill media requests and military requirements.

"Media requests and military requirements". Funny that it is in the same sentence.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
YES! Especially the major broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) and cable (CNN) news outlets.

NO, ANY broadcast. And it even doesn't need to be in the US.

BTW, they failed to mention this didn't start with Bush.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
NO, ANY broadcast. And it even doesn't need to be in the US.

BTW, they failed to mention this didn't start with Bush.

True. It started with Clinton. But then, Bush perpetuates it. I guess the originator had a good idea in the first place...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Agreed, but here, we are talking about Public Relations agencies paid by the U.S. government to create "news" that put a very favorable light on what is happening in Iraq, [/i].

You mean as opposed to government funded news agencies that have consistently put out "news" that puts a very unfavorable light on what is happening in Iraq.

You seem upset by the idea of journalists taking the easy way out and simply going with a story they are handed. I agree with that, but I don't see why there is anything wrong with the US government presenting its side of the story to counter the unremitting partisan negativity of the MSM. Besides, the military has has public affairs officers for ever. It's nothing new.

Repeating prepackaged news is also not something limited to news from places like Iraq. Every time you turn on the news and read a story that begins "A new study says . . . " or "a new poll finds . . . " the news story is usually generated by partisan group's press release thinly rewritten by a lazy and/or pressed for time journalist. It happens all the time.

It is also often not identified. For example, not long ago, there was a big story about a Part of the Patriot Act Struck Down (link to Washington Post). The story appeared essentially unchanged in most of the mainstream media. The reason is that story was simply a rewite of a press release put out by the plaintiff in the case, the ACLU. The story as presented by the ACLU was inaccurate. In fact, the statute struck down was only modified by the Patriot Act, but what was struck down dated from 1987. (The link here it to a debunking of the press release, and criticism of the media for not checking the ACLU claim, but I looked at the original press release at the time and it was all but identical to the news articles).

The same thing happens across the media. Periodically, the conservative Washington Times prints something on their front page that turns out to be nothing but a rewrite of a conservative group's press release (their periodic anti-gay articles especially seem prone to this). It's not hard to spot.

The answer is simply for consumers of news to see and read critically.

[bubblewrap]

Exactly.
I know how to ignore the ********.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The answer is simply for consumers of news to see and read critically.

How can the consumer read critically when the news are being provided by people posting themselves as reporters under a false name? How can the audience verify so-called "facts" if the origin of the information is barely traceable?

Of course interest groups are manipulating the media. But then, how can the public be critical if none of the information provided is reliable?

And I do question when a government pays PR agencies to present another point of view, but does not identify itself in the process, on the basis that its positions requires "presenting its side of the story to counter the unremitting partisan negativity".

[bubblewrap]

How can the audience verify so-called "facts" if the origin of the information is barely traceable?

I'll bet Dan Rather is still asking himself that one.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean as opposed to government funded news agencies that have consistently put out "news" that puts a very unfavorable light on what is happening in Iraq.

The BBC is taxpayer funded, not government funded. An important distinction, since the collection of those funds and the management of the resulting expenditure is handled by an independent body. Certainly it bears no similarity to a government PR outfit.

Whether it is comes down on one side or the other of the Iraq issue is probably a matter of perspective, Gilligan aside. I've read a number of positive stories about Iraq on there in the last couple of months, although it's hard to see how (or why) any news organisation could put a favourable spin on a seemingly endless series of massacres.

Personally I take great heart from the fact that the BBC is routinely savaged for alleged bias by both main political parties in the UK. It's also quite unique in being possibly the only large British institution that our two most gung-ho premieres of recent times have backed away from attempting to tame, following widespread public concern.

All governments hate the BBC, regardless of political orientation, or even nationality! I think that's great.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Repeating prepackaged news is also not something limited to news from places like Iraq. Every time you turn on the news and read a story that begins "A new study says . . . " or "a new poll finds . . . " the news story is usually generated by partisan group's press release thinly rewritten by a lazy and/or pressed for time journalist. It happens all the time.

The answer is simply for consumers of news to see and read critically.

++

Seems that the vast majority of 'news' we are subjected to from any and all sources is re-written PR drivel. There's just too much space to fill.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
How can the consumer read critically when the news are being provided by people posting themselves as reporters under a false name? How can the audience verify so-called "facts" if the origin of the information is barely traceable?

Are you just now noticing that what reporters present as neutral news often (altually usually, maybe even always) isn't neutral news? Good grief! What rock have you been hiding under?

Reporters are generalists, on tight deadlines. They do very little original reporting. They frequently have little substantive knowledge of what they write about, and no time to educate themselves. What they do is look for sources to quote and summarize. When it is a direct quote, they usually (but not always) identify it as such. When it is simply background, they don't identify it. But you need to know it was there.

The problem is that many reporters, from both sides of the isle, tend to lean heavily on prepackaged press releases. People with a story to tell know this, that is why press releases are written to be plagiarized by lazy journalists. The hope is simply that what you write will be adopted. This happens across the board, both sides of the political divide, and not just in the US.

The consumer simply needs to be a smart consumer. Don't go lookking for a "neutral" source, because it doesn't exist. All news is biased. So take that bias into account. Either discount what you read by some bias factor, or better yet, read more than one source so you can even the bias out.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
NO, ANY broadcast. And it even doesn't need to be in the US.

BTW, they failed to mention this didn't start with Bush.

Agreed, the Soviet Union was doing this long before the US. It's only been perfected in the US to the point where it's not as noticeable.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you just now noticing that what reporters present as neutral news often (altually usually, maybe even always) isn't neutral news? Good grief! What rock have you been hiding under?

No need to be offensive. I know reporters are not respecting criteria of strict objectivity. But to be able of criticism on the news supposes some reliability of the information provided. Also, journalism goes with a certain ethics that is promoted by the newsmedia that is expected from the audience.

Reporters are generalists, on tight deadlines. They do very little original reporting. They frequently have little substantive knowledge of what they write about, and no time to educate themselves. What they do is look for sources to quote and summarize. When it is a direct quote, they usually (but not always) identify it as such. When it is simply background, they don't identify it. But you need to know it was there.

The problem is that many reporters, from both sides of the isle, tend to lean heavily on prepackaged press releases. People with a story to tell know this, that is why press releases are written to be plagiarized by lazy journalists. The hope is simply that what you write will be adopted. This happens across the board, both sides of the political divide, and not just in the US.

The consumer simply needs to be a smart consumer. Don't go lookking for a "neutral" source, because it doesn't exist. All news is biased. So take that bias into account. Either discount what you read by some bias factor, or better yet, read more than one source so you can even the bias out.

But the issue here is that PR agencies paid by your government (and Clinton's before it) are providing information for its own interest, but not necessarily it's constituencies.

If you feel that the NYT article is false, say so and prove your point.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
All governments hate the BBC, regardless of political orientation, or even nationality! I think that's great.

I don't particularly want to go there again. That is why I put a after my comment. It was simply winding you BBC fanboys up.

However, you are making a common mistake. The reason the Beeb news annoys both Labour and Conservative governments isn't because it is politically in the middle between them, it is because it is well to the left of any recent British government, Labour or Tory.

But that is for another thread. In fact, it has been for several threads that can be easily found by a quick search.

Seems that the vast majority of 'news' we are subjected to from any and all sources is re-written PR drivel. There's just too much space to fill.

This is of course the real point. It doesn't matter what country you live in, and it doesn't matter what news you turn to. There is always an angle -- whether driven by someone feeding the news reporter from the outside, or from the reporter's own biases. Usually, it is a combination of the two. Conservative media turn to conservative sources to get their angle, lefties turn to theirs. Consumers just need to be aware of it.

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Also, journalism goes with a certain ethics that is promoted by the newsmedia that is expected from the audience.

Not that I have ever noticed. If there was a code of ethics, Rather would have resigned in disgrace, not got a week-long salute. And Maureen Dowd, whose practice of misquoting people has given us a new word -- dowdification -- would not still be writing for the New York Times.

Professions like medicine and the law have codes of ethics and they enforce them. Journalism isn't a profession. It is simply a trade and a business and the code they enforce is the Great Bottom Line. Like any business, it is buyer beware.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't particularly want to go there again. That is why I put a after my comment. It was simply winding you BBC fanboys up.

However, you are making a common mistake. The reason the Beeb news annoys both Labour and Conservative governments isn't because it is politically in the middle between them, it is because it is well to the left of any recent British government, Labour or Tory.

But that is for another thread. In fact, it has been for several threads that can be easily found by a quick search. [/B]

I'm happy to join you in that thread, should you wish to start it, or if you're concerned that further debate here would derail. But first I want to correct your selective reading of my post.

As well as the line you replied to (which was of course just for you Bush fanboys ) I said that the BBC had been accused of bias "by both main political parties", not just elected "governments". It was repeatedly accused of right-wing bias by the socialist Labour party of the 70s and 80s, as well as the exact opposite by the Heath and Thatcher Tory governments of the same period. In recent years it has been attacked by the (neo-communist?) Lib Dems, as well as the big two. Quite a unique achievement really.

Here's some of the BBC's positive coverage of Iraq from recent months.

Iraq 'helped Mid-East democracy'
Hopeful expats vote in Iraq poll
Positive profile of Ibrahim Jaafari
Blogs from Iraqis talking about the future following the elections
Hungry to vote in Iraqi Kurdistan

If you have BBC material that demonstrably shows Iraq in an unfavourable light, I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for the evidence. You did after all introduce the BBC into this thread as comparable in the extent of their bias to official government PR departments, if I understood you correctly.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

This is of course the real point. It doesn't matter what country you live in, and it doesn't matter what news you turn to. There is always an angle

++

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
If you have BBC material that demonstrably shows Iraq in an unfavourable light, I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for the evidence.

No, I'm not going to derail this thread in that way. Suffice to say I have a low opinion of the BBC, and have had for many years. At least since Kate Adie won a BAFTA for rebroadcasting Libyan propaganda during the Libyan strike in 1986, probably earlier. Meeting a few BBC journalists here in DC hasn't improved my low opinion of them either.

If you want evidence of their bias and unprofessionalism, you can persue that on your own. The Hutton report would be a good place to start. Biased BBC is also a good place.

Anyway, it was an aside, a quiet dig. Not an invitation to a sidetrack. Let's let SimpleLife's thread go in the direction he wanted it to go in.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Anyway, it was an aside, a quiet dig. Not an invitation to a sidetrack. Let's let SimpleLife's thread go in the direction he wanted it to go in.

Which is about:

But the issue here is that PR agencies paid by your government (and Clinton's before it) are providing information for its own interest, but not necessarily it's constituencies.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you want evidence of their bias and unprofessionalism, you can persue that on your own.

I was hoping you'd support your actual contention regarding the BBC's reporting of "what is happening in Iraq" with fact, that's the way these things usually work. But if it was a "dig" at certain members of the board, rather than a contention about the BBC, fair enough.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

The Hutton report would be a good place to start. Biased BBC is also a good place.

Oh, you changed your mind and provided some evidence after all. An inquiry appointed by the UK Prime Minister which has been almost universally discredited - even by most right-leaning publications in the UK press. And a conservative blog. Things ain't looking good!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Anyway, it was an aside, a quiet dig. Not an invitation to a sidetrack. Let's let SimpleLife's thread go in the direction he wanted it to go in.

I don't know what direction he wanted it to go in, so clearly you have me at a disadvantage there. I would say a sidetrack is fine, it's not a de-rail and the topic is entirely relevant to the OP, which is presumably why you made the comparison in the first place. No need to reply though, if you don't want to.



On-topic: government-manufactured news using the visual language and production format established over the last 30 years by independent broadcasters is a con trick, plain and simple. It is the use of smoke and mirrors to get around the strict limits most countries impose on party political and government advertising. Comparing it to "and in today's news, a new report says..." is also ludicrous. We have constant news reports that begin with 'The government says..." which are the equivalent of this. A government financing, producing and editing an entire report or infomercial whilst they or the media organisation involved imply that it is somehow part of an objective appraisal is a completely different situation, and one I'm glad we haven't been subjected to (yet).

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Also, journalism goes with a certain ethics that is promoted by the newsmedia that is expected from the audience.

Not that I have ever noticed. […] Professions like medicine and the law have codes of ethics and they enforce them. Journalism isn't a profession.

http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/germany.html

There is certainly an American equivalent of the press code as well.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by TETENAL:

Not that I have ever noticed. […] Professions like medicine and the law have codes of ethics and they enforce them. Journalism isn't a profession.

http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/germany.html

There is certainly an American equivalent of the press code as well. [/B]

Yeah. It seems to be somewhat popular in the United States...

Aw...

U.S. journalists fare well on test of ethics, study finds
Recent opinion polls show declining respect for the news media and a growing belief among many Americans that reporters have little regard for ethics.

High-profile journalism scandals involving ethical lapses at CBS News, The New York Times, USA TODAY and other media outlets have fed the public's distrust of reporters.

Just this week, a survey of 112,000 high school students found that 36% say newspapers should get government approval before publishing stories and that 32% say the media enjoy too much freedom.

But in a new study, journalism turns out to be one of the most morally developed professions in the country, ranking behind only seminarians, physicians and medical students.(...)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL: Quoting SimeyTheLimey:
Not that I have ever noticed. […] Professions like medicine and the law have codes of ethics and they enforce them. Journalism isn't a profession.[


http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/germany.html

There is certainly an American equivalent of the press code as well.

I don't know about Germany, but in the US there is no equivilent to, say, the codes of professional responsibility that exist in each state for lawyers. At best there are aspirational statements, with no enforcement mechanisms whatsoever.

If a journalist in the US commits an unethical act, for example, peddling forged documents to try to affect a presidential election, there are no means to discipline the journalist other than the normal means for disciplining an unethical employee that any employer has. That isn't an enforceable independent self-policing ethical system such as a true profession has.

Contrast that with the ethical system for lawyers. In most states, you have to sit a specific ethics exam before taking the bar exam. That's the code you have to abide by, and it is binding. Even if the MPRE isn't required, there is still a binding code.

If a lawyer behaves in an unethical way, the public can initiate a complaint, and members of the profession are obligated to squeal on him. If they don't, they will also be liable for professional discipline. That discipline is administered by the state bar under the supervision of the state's Supreme Court. This is quite separate from any punishment his employer (if he has one) chooses to impose. No employer could cover for a lawyer the way CBS did for Dan Rather, for example.

Ultimately, that professional discipline can include taking away the license to practice law. There is no equivilent sanction for an unethical journalist.

In addition, professions have barriers to entry. In order to practice law, you have to be a member of the bar. That requires passing a stiff exam. In most states, you also have to have a Juris Doctor degree from a recognized school. A fixed minimum level of education is another hallmark of a profession.

Journalists have no standardized educational requirements. For example Peter Jennings, the anchor of ABC News, has only a high school diploma. You can't be a doctor or a lawyer with only a high school diploma. But you can be a journalist if you can find someone willing to publish you. Basically, journalism has traditionally been learned on the job. You don't have to have an education in journalism to be a journalist. To take another example, Maureen Dowd has a degree in English. Big whoop.

Journalists are thus not professions in the correct sense. They are professionals only in the sense that a secretary is a professional. They are paid to do their work, and they can be diligent and good at it, or they can be terrible. But if they are terrible, there is nothing anyone but their employers can do about it because there are no binding ethical standards to hold them to.

Or as I put it before "Professions like medicine and the law have codes of ethics and they enforce them." Journalism has no code of ethics that is enforced. They are not bound in any way by their aspirational standards.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Or as I put it before "Professions like medicine and the law have codes of ethics and they enforce them." Journalism has no code of ethics that is enforced. They are not bound in any way by their aspirational standards.

Does your government have a code of ethics regarding the use of media?

[TETENAL]

Well, fact remains that journalists do have ethics, and you should have noticed. And by those journalistic ethics reproducing governmentally preproduced news segments is unethical.

Guideline 1.3. Press releases
Press releases issued by government agencies, political parties, associations, organizations or other representative bodies must be identified as such if they are published unedited.

Whether an individual journalists can be punished for such unethical behavior is another matter.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Well, fact remains that journalists do have ethics, and you should have noticed. And by those journalistic ethics reproducing governmentally preproduced news segments is unethical.



Whether an individual journalists can be punished for such unethical behavior is another matter.

You posted something from Germany. That's nice, but pretty much irrelevant unless we are talking about Germany.

Personally, I think journalists ought ot be pressure to identify the source whenever they use a press release. I think that is something the public should demand. I don't see anything unique about a government press release. It is just as important to know that a story that purports to be neutral was in fact written by a partisan -- whether that partisan is a private group like the ACLU, a quasi-governmental group, or a government. The problem is that such press releases are used without identification all the time.

Journalists would be trusted more if they were more transparent. That has nothing to do with self important, pretending to be a profession "ethics codes," everything to do with making their product more effective. Because right now, a smart consumer takes anything a journalist says with a huge pinch of salt.

[SVass]

Every respondent seems to miss the point. The expenditure of federal funds for propaganda is ILLEGAL in the United States of America. The CRIMINAL administration of Bush will not prosecute lawbreakers (themselves). sam

[OldManMac]

Fascinating, how a thread about how the U. S. government fabricates "news," without attribution, gets turned into one about how everybody else does it, including a foreign news source, and then into one about how there may not be any code of ethics for journalists. What a neat way to dodge the original point, and therefore, not have to admit that anything wrong was done.

Can you say spin? There, I knew you could.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Fascinating, how a thread about how the U. S. government fabricates "news," without attribution,

The article didn't say that the news stories were fabricated.

Originally posted by SVass:
Every respondent seems to miss the point. The expenditure of federal funds for propaganda is ILLEGAL in the United States of America. The CRIMINAL administration of Bush will not prosecute lawbreakers (themselves). sam

PR is not illegal, but I understand that certain types of PR and lobbying is illegal (though I don't think it is criminal, its a matter of appropriations).

However, the article seemed to suggest that in fact the activities were within the law. Calling something illegal and it actually being illegal are two different things. In fact, the article seemed to blame mostly journalists for not disclosing their use of prepackaged materials. That's a bit rich coming from the New York Times. Pot -- Kettle.

[Moderator]

guilt

[SVass]

Put simply, everything in the US that is illegal is a CRIME according to our current CRIMINAL administration. Their idiotic precursor group invented a crime called conspiracy; that is, if one plots or agrees to do something that is illegal then it is a crime. In the 1880s they got a court to agree that to withhold labor (a union strike) was a CRIMINAL conspiracy. Last week, they got a court and jury to agree that to talk about providing money to a a federal agent who claimed to be a member of Hezbollah was a criminal conspiracy. They provided no money and did not agree to provide money, they merely talked about the subject with him. Thus, according to the US Department of Justice, it was a CRIME. So for a group to spend money in violation of a prohibition is a conspiracy and thus is a felony. By the way, refusal to investigate or prosecute war criminals is obstruction of justice according to their rules. sam

[Dimethyltrypt]

hey those businessmen have all the right to support THEIR party via THEIR tv companies. Who are you guys to criticize them? Go start your own tv company.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW, they failed to mention this didn't start with Bush.

If you squint, you can find this line buried...

The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts.

I wonder why they didn't report this when the Clinton administration was producing these things.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If you squint, you can find this line buried...
I wonder why they didn't report this when the Clinton administration was producing these things.

How about feasting your eyes on these

But then, that is not the topic of this thread. Right?

But I made some research just for you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Agreed, the Soviet Union was doing this long before the US. It's only been perfected in the US to the point where it's not as noticeable.

E V E R Y O N E

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
How about feasting your eyes on these

But then, that is not the topic of this thread. Right?

But I made some research just for you.

Not nearly the same and you know it.

Besides you forgot to quote space's quote that pretty much makes the topic in this thread dishonest. .

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The article didn't say that the news stories were fabricated.



PR is not illegal, but I understand that certain types of PR and lobbying is illegal (though I don't think it is criminal, its a matter of appropriations).

However, the article seemed to suggest that in fact the activities were within the law. Calling something illegal and it actually being illegal are two different things. In fact, the article seemed to blame mostly journalists for not disclosing their use of prepackaged materials. That's a bit rich coming from the New York Times. Pot -- Kettle.

They were in fact not true news stories; they were made up by the government; they were fabricated to suit a particular purpose, which was to gain support for the government. That's a long way from news and journalism. You're smart enough to know that, but I shouldn't have expected any thing else from you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
They were in fact not true news stories; they were made up by the government; they were fabricated to suit a particular purpose, which was to gain support for the government. That's a long way from news and journalism. You're smart enough to know that, but I shouldn't have expected any thing else from you.

First of all, a big for the needless personal remarks.

Secondly, "fabricated" implies that the content of the news reports and press releases given to the media is untruthful. The New York Times doesn't allege that. Just because a government spokesperson says something, doesn't make the statement false. Nor does the NYT suggest that anything was "made up." It doesn't say that the events in the reports didn't happen. Only that a government writer wrote about them. That is not making things up, any more than a New York Times makes things up when their journalists write a story (and maybe less, see Jayson Blair for details).

All the New York Times alleges is that the news reports were produced by the government, given to news outlets, and that those news outlets used those government produced news reports without telling their readers and viewers that the government produced the report. That is not fabrication, it is facilitation.

What this story is really about is journalistic sloppiness and/or laziness. As has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, relying on that is hardly unique to the government. For example, when the New York Times, CBS, the Washington Post, etc. ran with an almost unchanged ACLU press release, that wasn't the ACLU's fault. It also wasn't the ACLU in any way "fabricating" news (although their press release was misleading in that particular case). It was just the ACLU putting out a press release in the hope that some journalist would be so lazy that they would just adopt what the ACLU wrote instead of doing their own reporting. And as so often happens, the NYT etc. took the bait.

This is public relations. It is perfectly legitimate to try to get your message out. It is then up to the journalist to be honest about what source is used.

There is nothing holy about a journalist writing a paragraph as distinct from a public relations person doing so. It is still news whether a journalist writes the words, or a press officer does. What makes it news is the content, not the author.

But what can change is the bias of the writer. The problem comes when the journalist doesn't come clean with the audience so the public can know what it is that they are seeing, and whose bias it is. In other words, the only problem here is caused by the journalists' failure to disclose.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That is not making things up, any more than a New York Times makes things up when their journalists write a story (and maybe less, see Jayson Blair for details).

All the New York Times alleges is that the news reports were produced by the government, given to news outlets, and that those news outlets used those government produced news reports without telling their readers and viewers that the government produced the report. That is not fabrication, it is facilitation.

If the items were produced to look like news items, were run alongside news items and there was no indication at any point that they were anything other than news items - PR people using false names, for God's sake - then it's not facilitation. It's deliberate deception on behalf of the government. Trying to con people using carefully managed production values and visual cues to make them think they are watching a news programme that they might ordinarily expect to have some degree of independence - however contrived.

It's pretty funny from a distance but I wouldn't be too happy if my taxes were paying for it. That kind of production costs serious bucks. I'm surprised it doesn't bother you.

[spacefreak]

Every so often I hear this "FBI THis Week" spot on the radio. It's a 30-second or 60-second long piece, and is structured like a news update. The current spot talks about the FBI's investigation into public corruption in Chicago, and features some interview snippets with an FBI employee.

Here's what i am talking about... (requires Real Player if you want to listen... transcripted as well).

I have no problem with this. It's not like it's saying "Vote for Republicans", which is what this misportrayal in the NY Times could be interpreted as. It's simply some PR to let the public know what the organization does. I've also heard them end the spots with "The FBI is currently looking for qualified people to ... (ie- recruitment).

Perhaps if the mainstream media would cover the good things the FBI does, and not just the usual "FBI allowed 9/11 to occur" crap, there would be no need for these publically funded feel-good productions.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Also, journalism goes with a certain ethics that is promoted by the newsmedia that is expected from the audience.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
If the items were produced to look like news items, were run alongside news items and there was no indication at any point that they were anything other than news items -

That's a very nice use of the passive voice, nath. "[W]ere run." The passive voice fudges who the actor is.

So, taking out the passive and returning to the active voice means we have to ask the question: who ran the articles without telling people that they were produced by the government? Was it the government?

No it was not.

The articles were run by journalists. They could have identified the source as being someone other than themselves, but they chose not to. I do have a problem with that whether the source is government or any other organization. But the persons to blame are the journalists or the news outlets.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's a very nice use of the passive voice, nath. "[W]ere run." The passive voice fudges who the actor is.

So, taking out the passive and returning to the active voice means we have to ask the question: who ran the articles without telling people that they were produced by the government? Was it the government?

No it was not.

The articles were run by journalists. They could have identified the source as being someone other than themselves, but they chose not to. I do have a problem with that whether the source is government or any other organization. But the persons to blame are the journalists or the news outlets.

I'm not sticking up for the networks concerned, I wouldn't personally watch any channel that broadcast that type of guff.

Somebody in government made the call to make ads that are pretending to be news items. And you guys pay for it. All I'm saying is that I'd find that a bit galling.


edit: I seem to remember a certain leader of the free world mentioning government involvement in news media as something to be concerned about in Russia. Can't quite remember who that was now...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
I'm not sticking up for the networks concerned, I wouldn't personally watch any channel that broadcast that type of guff.

Somebody in government made the call to make ads that are pretending to be news items. And you guys pay for it. All I'm saying is that I'd find that a bit galling.

I don't think they are "ads pretending to be news items," they sound to me like news items pretending to be news items. They aren't any less news because the TV station wouldn't have made them on their own.

The reason they are produced is because it is a way to get out a message that otherwise wouldn't be heard. That's why all public relations is done.

I see nothing uniquely sinister about the government putting out press releases or the video equivilent any more than when private groups do it. And they do ALL do it. The problem here is simply disclosure, but that is in the news outlet's hands. Nobody puts a gun to their heads and forces them to use this material. And nobody is forcing them to palm it off as their own work.

Incidentally, I understand that in the UK there was a mini scandal a few years ago when the BBC and ITN ran a Video News Release produced by Greenpeace without disclosing it. Greenpeace's position (scroll down) is that the news organizations should have simply identified the supplied video. I agree with that, it sounds like an eminently sensible position.

I also agree with their justification. If they don't film things themselves and give the footage to TV stations, the TV stations won't pay attention to their issue. I see no sacred rule that says that what a TV producer decides to film is "news" and what he doesn't is "not news." It seems to me that mostly journalists behave like a mob -- all covering the same story. Anything to get them out of that box is good -- providing there is disclosure.

[SVass]

They are false advertising, not news! Specifically, one of these ads described the new expenditures for Medicare Prescription Drug Plan as helping older poor persons obtain drugs. Actually, 1/4 of the money goes to subsidize HMOs (10% more than private providers receive for all treatment). Other parts prevent the government from negotiating lower drug prices as is done by current insurance providers. These deficiencies were not mentioned in the government produced infomercials for the HMOs (and for the Bush/Republicans) run during an election campaign. sam

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think they are "ads pretending to be news items," they sound to me like news items pretending to be news items. They aren't any less news because the TV station wouldn't have made them on their own.

I guess what you're saying is that you trust the government to tell you the truth about what they are doing / how they are performing to the same extent or more than you do traditional journalism. Fair enough. I disagree.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

The reason they are produced is because it is a way to get out a message that otherwise wouldn't be heard.

The government can get its message heard any time it wants. Any time there is a story on a major network involving the government (especially regarding a controversial issue) they will most likely have the opportunity to give their view and interpretation of events, possibly in a detailed format such as a one on one interview. Whether the generally feeble qualities of most US TV presenters and journalists will get anything more out of them than the kind of puff piece described by the NYT is another matter.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I see nothing uniquely sinister about the government putting out press releases or the video equivilent any more than when private groups do it. And they do ALL do it. The problem here is simply disclosure, but that is in the news outlet's hands. Nobody puts a gun to their heads and forces them to use this material. And nobody is forcing them to palm it off as their own work.

They're certainly forcing you to pay for it though. Or at least not giving you any choice. That's a bit cheeky when, as you have repeatedly pointed out, a press release with a White House header could do the job just as well, without intentionally misleading the viewing public. You seem to be of the opinion that the decision to mislead was taken at the moment the network decided not to label the ad. I believe that decision was taken at the storyboard stage of pre-production.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I also agree with their justification. If they don't film things themselves and give the footage to TV stations, the TV stations won't pay attention to their issue. I see no sacred rule that says that what a TV producer decides to film is "news" and what he doesn't is "not news." It seems to me that mostly journalists behave like a mob -- all covering the same story. Anything to get them out of that box is good -- providing there is disclosure.

Well, I think the basic idea of the fourth estate is that it should be vigorous, independent and at arm's reach from government. It's usually taken to be one sign of a healthy democracy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
I guess what you're saying is that you trust the government to tell you the truth about what they are doing / how they are performing to the same extent or more than you do traditional journalism. Fair enough. I disagree.

This is just putting words in my mouth. It's true that I don't particularly put my trust in traditional journalists. They have their biases, and their weaknesses.

But that doesn't mean I put my trust especially in government. If journalists were doing their jobs properly they would be investigating the stories, not just adopting them and rebroadcasting them.

But I also don't distrust the government particularly any more than any of the other myriad sources whose press releases the media routinely regurgitates without attribution. The news is literally full of regurgitated puff peaces from every NGO and interest group under the sun. To my mind, it ALL ought to be disclosed. Make journalists do their jobs.

Well, I think the basic idea of the fourth estate is . . .

I don't recognize any such concept as the "fourth estate." That is just a journalist's conceit. The First Amendment protects all citizens's freedom of speech equally. Just because the Sultzbergers own a newspaper doesn't make them part of the US Constitution.

I think that is partly what is driving this. Papers like the New York Times feel themselves to be under assault. They want to be the gatekeepers of information, and they want to be the ones who decide what is news, and what is not. It drives them batty to be bypassed.

But the problem is, I don't see their moral superiority -- both from an abstract point of view, and because I see them doing the very thing they are accusing other journalists of doing. The only difference is that the news they repackage comes mainly from liberal sources and interest groups. That ACLU puff piece is just one example, but over the years I have seen many others. For example, a few years ago there was some vaguely feminist article that read to me like a press release. So I checked and sure enough, it was lifted almost word for word from a National Organization for Women press release. Are we supposed to trust NOW as a neutral source? Why?

I still think at bottom you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The simple fix is simply for journalists to tell us when they are presenting other people's words as their own. It doesn't matter which other people those are.

[OldManMac]

Part of an e-mail I just received from freepress.net:

Congress' Government Accountability Office determined that these "video news releases" were illegal "covert propaganda" and told federal agencies to stop. But last Friday, the White House ordered all agencies to disregard Congress' directive.

The Bush administration is using hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to manipulate public opinion.

------

We can dance around the head of a pin all we want, but the fact remains that this is pure, outright, deceipt, and should be stopped.

[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I still think at bottom you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. The simple fix is simply for journalists to tell us when they are presenting other people's words as their own. It doesn't matter which other people those are.

Simple fixes? What planet are you on? There is no "simple fix" which will improve the quality of the news. It's all about incremental improvements. This case is pretty clear. The government (state or national) shouldn't be making up fake news stories. I don't agree with your analogies to Greenpeace and NOW. The government is in a different class from these organizations.

Anyone know what Hastert's position on these is? We can't afford to incarcerate terrorists, but we can afford this trash?