Viewer Beware

[Snowden]

washingtonpost.com
Viewer Beware

Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A22

WHAT DOES Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" have in common with the Bush administration? They're both unabashed about putting out fake news. The Bush administration's version consists of video news releases -- government-produced, government-funded spots packaged to look and sound like regular television reports, complete with fake news reporters signing off from Washington. These are intended to be, and often are, aired by local television stations without any indication that the government is behind them. The Government Accountability Office found this kind of phony news to be impermissible "covert propaganda." It warned the government last month that such prepackaged news stories must be accompanied by a "clear disclosure to the television viewing audience" of the government's involvement. The Bush administration is now instructing its officials to ignore the GAO -- which is where (in addition to the question of comedic content) the administration and Mr. Stewart diverge. He wants you to know his news is phony.

Although this administration apparently isn't the first to use video news releases, it seems more enamored of them than its predecessors. For example: A spot commissioned by the Transportation Security Administration lauds "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security," which the "reporter" describes as "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history."

It's humiliating that local news stations, however short-staffed and desperate for footage, would allow themselves to be used this way. Indeed, as the New York Times reported Sunday, some have even lopped off government attribution when it was included or pretended the government reporter was one of their own. Even so, it's disingenuous for administration officials to blame the stations, given that many releases are crafted precisely to disguise their government origin.

This technique is both illegal and unwise. As a legal matter, the prepackaged news releases run afoul of the prohibition on the use of government funds for domestic "propaganda." The administration's interpretation -- it's okay to hide the source as long as the spot is "purely informational" -- is untenable: Highlighting some "facts" and leaving out others can be even more persuasive than outright advocacy, which is why the administration chose this device. More important, this kind of propaganda masquerading as news is a deceitful way for a democratic government to do business; fake journalists paid by the government to deliver its version of news are as disturbing as real commentators paid by the government to tout its views. White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended the video news releases on Monday as "an informational tool to provide factual information to the American people." Nice sentiment, but why, exactly, wouldn't the administration want to let the people in on one of the most salient facts: who, really, is doing the talking?

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

[BrianK]

Originally Posted by Snowden

Although this administration apparently isn't the first to use video news releases, it seems more enamored of them than its predecessors. For example: A spot commissioned by the Transportation Security Administration lauds "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security," which the "reporter" describes as "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history."

It's humiliating that local news stations, however short-staffed and desperate for footage, would allow themselves to be used this way. Indeed, as the New York Times reported Sunday, some have even lopped off government attribution when it was included or pretended the government reporter was one of their own. Even so, it's disingenuous for administration officials to blame the stations, given that many releases are crafted precisely to disguise their government origin.

Dang it I always miss the phony stuff. The stations here must be staffed well enough and have plenty of news footage because I haven't seen any of the video releases mentioned in the article. Wait I didn't see a list and description of the videos to look for. One about ["another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security," which the "reporter" describes as "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." ] was cited but somehow I didn't get to see it here.

I'm glad the GAO is on top of things, now if they would publish a list of videos, the sponsor, and the amount spent that would be of use to me as a means of learning exactly who is doing what. There have been any number of successful "whistleblower" lawsuit setteled in favor of the "whistleblower". With that in mind a GAO top dog could be specific.

Generalized articles are nice but details are what the American public is beginning to expect.

[odannyboy]

I call it the "FOX Effect", opinions and viewpoints packaged as news. Say it enough times and people think its true.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by odannyboy

I call it the "FOX Effect", opinions and viewpoints packaged as news. Say it enough times and people think its true.

That's very true, Dan. We are all apt to fall into the habit of accepting things as truth simply because of the way they are reported.

But, as Brian says, I think we expect details now. Maybe as a people, we are wising up. Maybe not, though. We really should be able to depend on our news media to make sure as possible that what we hear is truth. Dan Rather revealed a side of the news media we really ignored - that getting the story out was of greater importance to them than getting the truth out.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

Dan Rather revealed a side of the news media we really ignored - that getting the story out was of greater importance to them than getting the truth out.

Also, that making sure that the story was true and actually happened was secondary to an agenda.

[Bluehawk]

Has anyone other than ole Sir Blue ever noticed how it is that pert near ALL the TV stations use exactly the same video footage when reporting on a daily top news story?

[BrianK]

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

Has anyone other than ole Sir Blue ever noticed how it is that pert near ALL the TV stations use exactly the same video footage when reporting on a daily top news story?

The top 3 NBC,CBS, & ABC pretty much use the same footage. For a different take Cox channel 342 carries international news which doesn't seem to me to have a political agenda. UNI Vision and Gala the latin channels cover fairly decently. Fox the stand alone seems to counter what the big 3 put out. All in all there is a contrast which leaves the viewer {me} with something to sort out.

Little snippets of news on CNBC that affect the stock markets here and abroad helps put some of the news in perspective. I'm not a news junkie I just like to surf with my TV controller to see whats happening elsewhere.