Dan,
I did read the report and in fact agreed with many of its assertions, e.g., "You are correct for highlighting the problem of misleading news video." I suppose my rant had more to do with the history of the VNR debate, as framed by PR Watch, and the organization's general indictment of the PR profession.
Believe it or not, I, and many other PR pros, find value (and learn from) much of what the Center reports. In fact, if you read my blog, you'll find that we're probably more aligned philosphically than not.
Now if the Center actually took the time to learn more about industry's and its leaders' efforts to ensure that we remain a profession with considerable integrity, we'd be getting somewhere.
Stay in touch.
Peter,
I'm the co-author of the Center for Media and Democracy's "Fake TV News" report. If you had looked at what we actually presented, or if you had even read the very New York Times article you linked to in your blog post, you would have seen that our criticism is already aimed squarely at the TV newsrooms who incorporate the VNRs. Why else would we have taken our findings to the FCC instead of the PRSA?
We're asking that TV stations to stop passing off VNRs as their own objective journalism, and to start labeling the sources of all non-editorial video, as currently dictated by the RTNDA's ethical standards for VNR use.
But don't let the facts get in the way your rant.
Paull, I'm going to have to side opposite Spence. I'm a former journalist, and trust me: their motivation for using the material is not pure.
They WANT the viewer at home to think that they dug up the information.
They WANT the viewer to think they have a massive staff and a similar budget.
They WANT to be the station that caters to the "news you can use" demographic.
They just don't want to look cheap doing it.
I'll make you a bet. You burn a PR logo in the corner of the VNR like Peter suggests, and I'll wager at least half of the stations running the piece will cover it with an even bigger logo.
Faulting the PR practioner for "knowing" it might be misused is an unfair burden. It's like blaming crack addiction on Arm & Hammer because it manufactures baking soda.
I agree with your thoughts here, but I thought I'd highlight the views of an Australian academic, Ed Spence.
I've discussed the same issue at my blog (http://youngie.prblogs.org/2006/01/16/pr-ethics-
and-trust/)
Spence's view is that it is not the fault of the journalist for reproducing the material, but that PR's are responsible because we produce the material knowing that the journo may print it without identifying the source.
"the attention and action of TV station personnel" -- this is the key, as you point out. I don't blame McDonald's for making me overweight five years ago, I blame myself for eating the stuff. I hope broadcast news stations, especially local outlets, continue to run VNRs, as the VNRs more often than not have more news value than the "journalism" most affiliates produce.
Commenting by HaloScan
