PDA

View Full Version : Video News Release - Strike 2 Against U.S. MSM



Nbadan
03-13-2005, 06:44 AM
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN
Published: March 13, 2005
Ready-Made 'News'


Government agencies have been producing prepacked TV broadcasts for local news stations. Karen Ryan was the "reporter" in several government-produced segments.

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.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used 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.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html?hp&ex=1110690000&en=13c490d47a932e2e&ei=5059&partner=AOL&oref=login)

And our MSM eats this shit up, lazy fucks. Anyone remember what Anold' said when he got busted doing the same thing in Cali?


"It's the highest technology," Schwarzenegger said. "You edit it really well, and then you send it out. It's really done in a correct way, but some people are not used to it yet, it's so high tech."

High tech! :lol

Spurminator
03-13-2005, 01:11 PM
Again, this reads like an article written by someone who has never heard of a VNR until they found out the current administration was producing them... Designed to fit cohesively with other news reports? Actors playing reporter roles? No shit, that's what a VNR is, by definition. It's a staple of Public Relations.

I think it's something that needs to be addressed when it comes to the government using taxpayer money to produce VNRs, but let's not pretend this hasn't been going on since before the last four years.

exstatic
03-13-2005, 01:18 PM
Is anyone surprised at this, after Pimp Karl Rove has been slipping money under the table to so-called newsmen to push his agenda?

Nbadan
03-13-2005, 03:29 PM
There have been no small number of Presidents who've been at odds with the press, but none of them wanted to be totaly rid of it--for one reason. Without the press, the administration's message doesn't get out to the general public.

What Bush (and, particularly, his director of communications, Dan Bartlett) have tried to do is stifle the curiosity of the press, largely through threats of diminished access and intimidation. In that, they've been highly successful.

They've had a lot of help, too, from sympathetic media leaders, such as Roger Ailes at Fox, Sumner Redstone at CBS and recently, Jack Welch at GE/NBC. Because of the ratings pressure applied by those people, CNN and the major papers continue to soft-pedal Bush policies and persist in not investigating what is prima facie corruption and authoritarian practices in the Bush administration, preferring instead to engage in "he said, she said" banter about Bush policies and practices.

And, there's not a single news service who will start investigating the adminstration and also stop covering their bullshit. The latter would hurt them at least as much as the former. If the press stopped covering every stage-play non-event created by the White House to sell something they want and stuck to real news, many of these ridiculous charades would quickly disappear.

Aggie Hoopsfan
03-13-2005, 03:39 PM
So, summing it all up...

When Zarqawi, bin Laden, et. al do this with Al Jazeera, it's further proof that we're getting our asses handed to us.

When we do it with "MSM" here in America, it's propaganda.

Rather hypocritical, wouldn't you say?