The FCC anticipates increasing concerns in 2008 over video news releases which don't identify the source of the information. The issue involves public relations efforts that send video news releases to television stations packaging some promotion about a brand within the guidelines of a traditional news release.
The information should be truthful and informative or the television station isn't likely to air it and it looks to the viewer like a regular news story.
Okay, I'm admitting my PR bias and I'm going to explain why this isn't such a big deal.
"A new diabetes drug is on the market," the local anchor says..."Here's Jane Doe with some background." Then a video airs in which Jane talks about a new drug for diabetes, providing lots of information on its benefits to the sufferer. The information is truthful...the information is helpful to people who suffer from diabetes.
What the information isn't...is produced at that station. In fact, such information may be created by the diabetes drug manufacturer by a public relations team. The VNR promotes the new drug...so its sells...television stations get some good video on a newsworthy topic...the consumer gets helpful information.
Everybody's happy, right?
Not the FCC. The FCC believes the consumer should be told that the VNR is FROM the DRUG COMPANY. The argument behind this is the FCC believes the consumer should know when the information they're accessing is promotional to help the brand and its reputation, rather than the impartial views of a television journalist.
We've been reading news releases for decades from newspapers which don't identify that the news came from a source other than the newspaper. Print news releases are sent to newspapers daily with informative content of interest to the paper's readers.
CSU-Pueblo sends news releases out daily about all the important happenings at the university. The Chieftain staff and the local television and radio station staffs can't possibly come up here and cover all the news we've got to share on a daily basis. It's not LOGISTICLY POSSIBLE. CSU-Pueblo wouldn't get much coverage if the reporter had to personally come up here each time and write each individual story.
When you see a reporter's byline in a newspaper, it identifies the primary writer on the story. When you don't see a byline on a story, it could be because there were multiple authors...or it was a news release from the organization upon which the content is based.
It's standard protocol...it helps the media...as long as the content is accurate and truthful. What is the benefit of identifying every news release that comes into the paper or television station? If the media did, you might be surprised at how much of your news is generated by news releases. There's no other way to get newsworthy information to television and newspapers with such small journalist staffs.
The question is: Does this bother you as a consumer of news?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Several years ago, I watched some silly sitcom where a single mother of a young boy had a male, live-in nanny. This "nanny" was with the boy all day and thought it fine to make most of the boy's day-to-day decisions; e.g., what he had for breakfast, with whom he played, etc. Through the mother's insecurites, she insisted that the nanny ask her permission before he made any decisions regarding the boy. The nanny would call and interupt her at work to ask if the boy could have an apple.
This story is exactly what came to mind when I read "FCC Claims Concerns with VNRs."
Do I really want to know where all news comes from? Um, no.......If I am reading the Pueblo Chieftain, I am going to assume it is a reliable source.
Having an advertising background, I think the news-lady promoting a pharmaceutical product is GENIUS!
I just read another blog which questioned rather or not the media coverage of the presidential campaign is biased?
One news show, or newspaper article is not enough to convince me of anything. If I am interested, I will gather many sources and come to my own conclusion.
Shame on the FCC; we are smarter than that!
I'm with the FCC on this and for some pretty obvious reasons.
It's not only important, it's a matter of integrity.
First, VNR's have long been criticised as being disguised as pieces of journalism, which is deceitful no matter how you spin it.
Here's the scenario presented:
"A new diabetes drug is on the market," the local anchor says..."Here's Jane Doe with some background."
[Whoa, this is not... Jane Doe Good Samaritan... This is Jen Mullen, Director of Public Relations for Multinational Drug Company. Not an unbiased reporter. A paid, professional message crafter.
Second, demonstrated by an earlier comment, some media users unwittingly ASSUME that everything they see and read from familiar news sources is reliable. Does that mean OBJECTIVE too?
This is too convenient for VNR producers(in this case a drug marketer).
Third, when did attribution become an optional tenet of journalism?
Anybody remember Dan Rather's career ending blunder?
Much of what he reported in that now infamous debacle was also true and factual.
[THE SPIN]
"The information is truthful...the information is helpful to people who suffer from diabetes... "The VNR promotes the new drug...so its sells...television stations get some good video on a newsworthy topic...the consumer gets helpful information."
Do they? How is the drug different or better than anything else presently on the market?
Is it cheaper? More expensive?
Will it eventually cure diabetes or does it simply maintain the disease like other commonly known drugs?
A thorough journalist should ask such questions. A VNR will ommit such detail if convenient.
Saavy PR people will only emphasize the most positive elements of a message. The rest, the investigation, is left up to the receiver.
But we're not purely talking about relevent messages to the general public. We're talking about messages from PHARMACEUTICAL companies to CONSUMERS.
Sounds like a TV commercial to me. And it's a darn clever way to cut through the clutter of a thousand other drug advertisements by underhandedly sneakin it into "the news."
Now we can play spin games here, and that's exactly what we promotional types are good at, but let's be honest and admit that this is a question more about backhanded advertising tactics. Not to mention ethics.
"We've been reading news releases for decades from newspapers which don't identify that the news came from a source other than the newspaper."
That's an awkward premise, not because it isn't true as far as the way information has traditionally been presented through media dissemination, but rather because it implies that misinformation is a natural occurence in the media -- albeit subtle and seemingly harmless.
For all the criticisms that news is biased, you'd wonder when our government would step in and try to impose some sort of standard aimed at ensuring transparency.
Which position is the public to take: Is the news media thorough, objective, and informational? Or is it lazy, slanted, and merely promotional?
Question: Why would the manufacturer of an important new medication want to go unnamed if indeed their product offered unique benefit to those suffering from a particular ailment?
Question #2: Why are the lines between promotion and information so easily blurred by proponents of tactics construed as mere tools?
Answer #1: INFORMATION, in the purest sense, doesn't hide; It merely sits to be discovered then is sprung to action to be interpreted and made useful. Any entity claiming dominion over fact simply asks for authority.
Authority then yeilds obedience either by blind adherent or the unwillingness to challenge.
Answer#2: Give people equal access to said discovery and ownership evaporates.
It's one thing to see an advertisement telling of it's own authority; It's another to describe the path to obedience without naming the oversite. Yet these are opposite sides of the same coin.
"Everybody's happy, right?
Not the FCC. The FCC believes the consumer should be told that the VNR is FROM the DRUG COMPANY. The argument behind this is the FCC believes the consumer should know when the information they're accessing is promotional to help the brand and its reputation, rather than the impartial views of a television journalist."
Our obsession with authority blurs the line between openness and marketability.
I'm a PR major, and I feel it imperative to promote public inquisitiveness and self reliance.
"The issue involves public relations efforts that send video news releases to television stations packaging some promotion about a brand within the guidelines of a traditional news release."
It's astonishing to realize that instructors of media communication are so perplexed by the implications of various types of manipulative communication.
It feels as though professors have become so enthralled with "usual" happenings and practices within our vocation that the nuances and qualities of audience examination and truthfullness have become drastically skewed.
Am I to believe that questions of ethics and forewardness are so subjective that any iterpretation is valid?
Taking advantage of the public's unwillingness to sift through media bombardment has become so prevolent that saying anything -- as long as its perceived to be credulous -- is acceptable and meaningful.
Where have the qualities of discourse and criticism disappeared to?
I undertsand why critics of PR as a profession say that the use of rhetorical distortion convolutes the intention and practice of Public Relations.
I have 15 years of sales, marketing and promotional skill at my behest. All throughout, I worried that I'd lost my virtue, sense of reality and respect for others during much of that time.
I understood that what people didn't know was as effective in salesmanship as the touting of benefits for buying a given product.
"Having an advertising background, I think the news-lady promoting a pharmaceutical product is GENIUS!"
It's most certainly clever, though ingenious it is not.
Instead it is disingenuous, sneaky and frivolous.
This is in fact the characteristic the mainstream media connoisseur most loathes. And it is why many Americans distrust the media.
"Do I really want to know where all news comes from? Um, no.......If I am reading the Pueblo Chieftain, I am going to assume it is a reliable source."
This is a very telling statement by someone who has no clue as to how journalistic tenets function, or to how misconception is bread.
Average - partisan media users fall victim to this type of reason frequently. And this is where talkin-head journalism has come to flourish in our media.
It indirectly posits that anyone with whom an individual or specialized group can relate thus speaks a sort of gospel truth.
It amounts to viewership and readership ratings for a given program or column, and it limits, not enhances, meaningful interpretation of data.
Am I so naive as to think that my casual observation of circumstance is valid and reliable. Yes indeed. This is what content providers bet on.
Journalism, fundamentally considered the fourth estate of democracy, idealy strives to curtail obfuscation.
What you witness today, in mainstream news media, is obfuscation at it's finest. What with your Daily Shows and O'reilly factors.
That students of communications are inadequately prepared to distinguish these realities is truely saddening.
"The information should be truthful and informative or the television station isn't likely to air it and it looks to the viewer like a regular news story."
The subversion of detail must mean the same as truthfulness in your opinion.
This thinking handily distorts the concepts of persuasion VS manipulation too.
"What the information isn't...is produced at that station. In fact, such information may be created by the diabetes drug manufacturer by a public relations team."
That's all the more reason why the audience deserves to know.
There is an agenda here. It might not be sinister or evil, but it is unmistakeably aimed at changing a behavior.
Consider that a sufferer watching this particular VNR is very interested in using this new medication - of course they're gonna seek it out, right?
So how is hiding the fact that it is FOR SALE and only made by COMPANY X simply an innocuous detail ripe for ommision?
Source credibility is everything in journalism!
SO are you arguing that a VNR is in fact journalism? Or or you arguing that it's passive information?
"What is the benefit of identifying every news release that comes into the paper or television station?"
What an astounding brain fart that is. I like an earlier post's reference to Dan Rather's incident.
[CSU-Pueblo sends news releases out daily about all the important happenings at the university. The Chieftain staff and the local television and radio station staffs can't possibly come up here and cover all the news we've got to share on a daily basis. It's not LOGISTICLY POSSIBLE.]
Frankly, It's not even logistically worthwhile.
Fishing "important" news releases to various media outlets is a tactic used by about every organization with something to sell or promote. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them are neccessarily ignored and stored in the wastebasket filing cabinet thus deemed "not that big of a deal."
[There's no other way to get newsworthy information to television and newspapers with such small journalist staffs.]
Are you serious?
Ever heard of the Associated Press or the internet?
Granted, the staff sizes of local media are relevent to the size of the particular business, BUT THE OVERALL NETWORK AND PIPELINES FOR INFORMATION TO TRAVEL ARE INDESCRIBABLY ENORMOUS!
It's such a competitive industry that, you're right, at least accidentaly; It's not possible to cover all of the stories available. There's simply not enough TIME.
A wise PR teacher once told me from the perspective of a journalist, "If your trying to promote or sell something, BUY AN AD!"
Truth is that when I graduate and practice my craft I too will artfully create messages in any way that sticks in order to get the publicity I'm after.
I'll believe in what I'm doing that much and only then will my personal ethics become subjective.
"...demonstrated by an earlier comment, some media users unwittingly ASSUME that everything they see and read from familiar news sources is reliable. Does that mean OBJECTIVE too?"
Certainly not. Just because something is in the Pueblo Chieftain does not mean it was objectively written, and I certainly didn't mean to imply such a thing. The fact of the matter is, subjectivity will run through-out.
"Sounds like a TV commercial to me. And it's a darn clever way to cut through the clutter of a thousand other drug advertisements by underhandedly sneakin it into 'the news."
Is this really a commercial? The name of the drug nor the company were provided.
"So how is hiding the fact that it is FOR SALE and only made by COMPANY X simply an innocuous detail ripe for omission?"
Because then it would be an advertisement and maybe that is the real question here: Should these VNRs release company names or should they be ommitted altogether? And if the name of the drug and company were said, how would this be fair and balanced?
While this may arguably be disingenuous, it is clever!
"That students of communications are inadequately prepared to distinguish these realities is truely saddening."
While this person has twice as many years as I in sales, marketing and promotions,he/she (don't have a name) did get one thing right:
S-T-U-D-E-N-T-S! If I thought my "advertising background" were enough to stand on, I probably woudn't be here!
It is possible, maybe with six months of education I will feel differently; for now, I still feel the same way: I do not need to know where every bit of news comes from.
The DVR has changed my life. I watch more television now than I ever have. I simply refuse to watch anything that has not been previously taped. I do not watch any commercials- EVER! I know that a television show and a news program cannot exist without sponsors!
I would like to think this forum offers students a positive learning tool; that being said, where/when does clever become disingenuous?
[Is this really a commercial? The name of the drug nor the company were provided.]
THE SCHIZOPHRENIA OF THIS AND THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BREATHTAKING.
[Because then it would be an advertisement and maybe that is the real question here: Should these VNRs release company names or should they be ommitted altogether? And if the name of the drug and company were said, how would this be fair and balanced?]
How would it not?
Jane Doe is there to give information, correct? To tell potential users of a new drug she'll have to give some clue as to how the drug works, how it was derived, and at the very least some sort of strange and possibly scientific name describing how the darn this is refered to by scientists.
And it is the most important information if it is to be of any use to the audience!
Sufferers, by your reason, are then left with no choice but to consult a doctor to find out for themselves. Make no mistake, This is backhanded advertising
Ok, if that's not straightforward enough. Let's compare this VNR, as it has been described by yourself, to something most folks might consider a commercial:
Guy or gal comes onto your screen who communicates discomfort of some sort, pick an ailment. Suddenly "Trademeark Name" is plastered all over your screen, and the next frame shows guy or girl engauged in the rigourous activities of life, the picture of health. Lastly, a never ending list of potential side effects and again the trademark name of the substance shown.
At no point are the major conglomerate owning the patent to produce the drug and trademark name mentioned.
The drug requires a prescription and consumers are directly advised to speak with a doctor.
What were talking about here in the difference between this particualr VNR and an advertisement boils down to a matter of STYLE not substance.
An informational piece of NEWS or Journalism might seek to uphold the paramount goal of objectivity in a segment that perhaps presented NEW DRUG "D" alongside older drugs A, B and C; then, thoroughly compare and contrast the efficacies of such medication an objective,scientific study -- thus identifying drug "D" as superior or perhaps not so superior.
That's the difference between information and promotiion. It's the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in Media communication.
I too am a student at this university seeking a credential, a ticket if you will, which will allow me to enter job markets otherwise inaccessible to someone who is just basically smart and thoughtful.
I'll never cease to be a
S-T-U-D-E-N-T. God forbid people actually leave school thinking their education is finished.
Think of it: ^-months to to learn all their is to know in higher education, then I'm done! Why doesn't everyone do this. teehee!
How long have we been consumers? Communicators?
We don't have the option of simply wearing paper bags over our heads waiting for someone with authority to tell us how to think about things. But challenging authority causes backlash, and annonymity serves one well when merely seeking to exchange ideas and not identity.
I'm also not here to be coddled by professors.
Somewhere in the postings, writers might have gotten the impression that the drug and the drug company aren't mentioned in the news story. Of course they are. And don't forget the tenets of good journalism: that a good journalist won't print or air any information from a public relations contact without vetting that information fully to insure the content is accurate. It's not unethical to get publicity about your organization...let's be clear on that. The media is a wonderful channel for informing the public. What is unethical is not telling the truth about your brand in order to attract audiences. Any PR pro who does that is going to be facing a credibility crisis of major proportions. There are unethical PR pros working just as there are unethical professionals functioning in every profession. The real issue here for the FCC isn't one of ethics, it's one of transparency: Should every print article you read and every video story you see on television, tell you that the initial source of the content was the organization, itself? Using the drug story example, should the viewer know that the drug company made contact with the TV station first to air the story, rather than the TV station going out and getting the story from the drug company?
I'm trying to be CLEAR on how the original post set up the discussion.
[The FCC anticipates increasing concerns in 2008 over video news releases which don't identify the source of the information.]
Ok, fine this is a valid concern and it's easy to figure out.
Yes! the public should know that a segment spliced into a news program has indeed come from a public relations team with an agenda.
WHETHER OR NOT THE AGENDA IS PROMOTIONAL OR INFORMATIONAL is secondary but altogether importan too..
In a sense, the two elements are not always mutually exclusive, and I get that.
Nevertheless, A VNR produced by a non-news organization IS NOT journalism -- for a trained media consumer it doesn't get much clearer than that.
But were talkin about the general public's ability distinguish such things, not mine our yours.
Do you really think it's ethical to not tell an audience that information they're seeing on the news wasn't gathered by a journalist?
Sure it's happened for years, but it's not anything like TRANSPARENCY if the VNR is merely introduced by a bonafide reporter and then handed off to a paid spokesperson. That's what goes un noticed and that's what's unethical. The PR message mooches of the perceived credibility and objectivity attributed to journalism, at least at one time anyhow.
No wonder why Americans distrust PR pro(se).
Your way of thinking seems to mean that anything any organization wishes to share with an unsuspecting, targeted audience is perfectly acceptable as long the minimal requsites of truthfulness, reliability and accuracy can be met. That's a mighty nice world to live in.
Only propaganda can thrive in an atmosphere so simple.
After all, my parents are truthfull, accurate and reliable. And I once believed in Santa Claus because of it.
An earlier post wrote:
[... tenets of good journalism:
a good journalist won't print or air any information from a public relations contact without vetting that information fully to insure the content is accurate.]
That's only part of the reason.
The primary reason news organizations "thoroughly vett" information is for reasons of liability.
On the one hand, if the information published or broadcast is later considered or perceived either slanderous or libelous... then very expensive and reputation damaging lawsuits can be filed against the dissemninator.
On the other hand, consider replacing the word vett with the word frame. It's arguable that mainstream media are far more concerned with how messages are framed.
You can bet that PR practioners are singly concerned with how information about their brand is framed.
What's more, framing ensures message continuity.
In other words, it helps determine what aspect of a message people focus on and how they feel about them.
Next time you watch the news -- pay more attention to how messages are framed and not as much to whether or not they seem believable and accurate.
This argument has too many undertones to count. Government regulating news; business controlling media; unwitting consumers exposed to deceiving facts; dot dot dot.
Ex 1. A diabetic patient, John Doe, watches the news broadcast and immediately decided the drug is right for him. Since he's been diagnosed he knows diabetes is a generally incurable disease and if not taken care of, will get worse and cause serious medical problems. John sets up an appointment with his doctor, brings up the new drug and the doctor either prescribes the drug or explains why the drug isn’t proper for Dear John. John now has a choice.
Should he take his doctors advice and continue his current treatment or should he find a doctor who will prescribe the drug? Can we blame the newscaster for John’s choice?
A previous comment got it perfect: “Shame on the FCC; we are smarter than that!” The people who would truly benefit from the drug are the ones who will follow their doctor’s advice.
What if we’re not talking about prescription medicine? The original post talks about the school, but what about auto manufactures, retail stores, clothing designers? Every time I watch a movie or TV series I see product placement. It pays. Instead of endorsements, news organizations use the “free” news to reduce costs.
In this modern age, manpower is a company’s largest expense. Materials, manufacturing and distribution are at the top of their games. Why would a new station or newspaper pay a full staff when they can pay half a staff and let the companies pay the other half?
Do people forget that news is business? Consumer dollars pay for everything on TV, billboards, and in magazines.
The flip side is it wouldn’t cost a thing to name the source of the information. It wouldn’t be hard or tedious and most people probably wouldn’t pay any attention. I believe the source of the information is irrelevant, it’s the consumer who decides to buy.
Thanks for weighing in Jen, I mean Josh? I was getting bored.
The concern of the FCC in this case is not whether or not consumers can make decisions for themselves.
It's about making sure manupilative practices are weeded out. Or media will become rife with all of the nuances you're trying to dismiss.
What's so hard to understand?Disclose sources of promotional information in our news. Period.
Do news organizations receive a cost benefit for partnering with other businesses in searching out and providing newsworthy information? In other words, is it cheaper to let self-interested groups submit material, rather than launch an army of journalists to track it down? WELL DUH!!
But you're severely crazy if you believe the content of the news should be partially determined by those who simply offer it up for free as a way of cutting costs.
I see where you've gotten off track.
[Every time I watch a movie or TV series I see product placement. It pays. Instead of endorsements, news organizations use the “free” news to reduce costs.]
You're foolishly blending what are supposed to be two separate entities here. News business and the Entertainment business. The public largely despises "infotainment" Yet many modern industries thrive on it.
Product placements in film help with production costs no doubt. However, during a "News" broadcast, Anderson Cooper doesn't suddenly take a refreshing sip of a Pepsi product carefully held to display the brand!
Instead, he say's, "We'll be right back after a short break. Then the advertising flurry begins.
What's more, advertising profits support the TV network's and film distributor's internal infrastructures more so than than the actual subject matter.
That infrastructure then negotiates with it's employees for producer salaries, newspersonality salaries, actor's salaries,etc. Keeps the lights on so to speak.
To my knowledge,
Slot's for VNR's showed during news reports are not sold to the highest bidder, as you would have people believe. If they were, then the news media, as the public now complains, would have no merit.
The statistics regarding this current perception speak for themselves.
A brief aside; Say that the source of your example VNR is company X. You know, the same company that pushed several heart medications onto the market by allegedly bribing officials in the FDA, who excused the company's shotty science and ok'd the drug for sale.
A piece of Journalism might tell people, that: yes, there is indeed a new drug for diabetes on the market, BUT RED FLAG CONSUMERS! ...This is also a drug made by Company X, who made all three of those cutting edge cardio vascular drugs that accidentally killed a hundred or so folks... You now have a lot of NECESSARY information "John." Go and make your decision free little bird!
I won't belabour this point. If you don't get it now, then you never will. You are AFFECTED.
I'll leave you with this though:
[A previous comment got it perfect: “Shame on the FCC; we are smarter than that!”]
Later followed by:
[Can we blame the newscaster for John’s choice?]
It Depends. To what standards do we hold the profession of Journalism? THIS IS THE FCC's BEEF. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED. Although such things would have to change. That's what you really seem to be afraid of as it relates to the practice of PR.
Are the media responsible for every fortunate or unfortunate decision a person makes. OF course not. I never said it was.
But it's a nice idea to have a team of investigators spending time and effort the average Joe doesn't have to sift through spin.
It's a social-scientific fact that people are terrible eye witnesses by themselves. Casual observers of information get things wrong far more often than do trained individuals, as your post proves.
Do we still believe in the romanticized 'watchdog' reporters of days old who saught to defend the public from undue influence. Probably not, sad to say.
Thanks for your input professor.
there are a lot of compelling ideas prsented on here, but one thing i just read kinda got me. Do reporters sit on their butts and wait for "free news" to fall on their desks? I thought the profession was more noble then that.
As a young women who loves the art of promotion, I don't want my job to be that easy.
Also, i've been taught to believe that in public relations we strive to receive free publicity, our brands have to be considered newsworthy enough to even attemp to gain a reporter's attention.
So what exactly is free news. i don't get it.
I think I got it figured miss. Let me help.
"Josh" might be a newspaper reporter. If so, he was likely called into the discussion in an attempt to lend some more authority to the original post's premise.
He makes me laugh though, so it was cool to read his stuff.
I imagined a journalist sitting at work with his legs up on his desk when his editor approaches only to ask, "So Ace, what leads are you sniffin out today."
The Ace reporter replies, "Sorry boss, I'm not really havin any luck developing any stories. Is there any "free news" layin around?"
A reporter like that should be fired. Or worse yet, be forced to spend his enire career rewriting news releases from PR people!
lmao
I don't like newspapers, and search out stuff on the web because I'm more likely to get more excitement by reading something a hungry commentator might have to say. Even if I don't agree.
No it doesn't bother me. As long as I'm getting the information its all good. It doesn't matter to me where they get the information from, and if its false then I sure people will figure it out. Well anyways it doesn't matter to me.
I agree with Mr. Fearheily.
If it's bad info, they'll figure it out. Probably like after someone dies.
Then the same news station that told you to ask your doctor about the new medicine will tell you that doctor's who prescribed it received kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies.
Anything goes dude, kill em all, let God sort em out!
Yeah, it doesn't really matter to me either.
I'm thinking of situations where a source contacts a journalist to expose something really big. Like in a whistleblowing situation like Watergate. A source's life might be in danger here, and as a reporter, I sure wouldn't want to get anyone killed. Knowing a source for something like that isn't all that important as long as what he or she said could be proven by evidence.
But I think it's shady of PR people who create documentary style footage about something and making it sound like a "report" by Joe Schmoe news guy.
There was a a scandal awhile back I heard about where Wal Mart paid so PR flunkies to drive around in an RV and blog about their trip. They'd boast about how nice it was to park for free in the Wal Mart parking lot. they'd talk about how convenient it was to shop there too and find all the cheap prices... SHADY I say.
Maybe their should be fines given out to corporations, news media and other outlets who allow misrepresentation.
I don't know, I think the worst thing that could happen now is a journalist could get fired, and a PR person could get snubbed PRSA...
Whoa scary!
Ethics have to be figured in case by case basis.
Formalities first. Thank you fellow responders for your enthusiastic compliments. Being called a professor was compliment enough, but believing that my writing skills could be comparable to a newspaper journalist as well is above and beyond. Yes (J)en (M)ullen and (J)osh (M)atthews could be pseudonyms, but I am completely independent from Jen Mullen. My education is Engineering, but mass communications is something I’ll be learning about all my life. Thank you again.
Formalities done with, let’s get to the meat. My argument comes directly from my disapproval of the government, or any of its entities, getting more control over anything. The federal government has overstepped its bounds countless times and steps on peoples constitutional rights every day. Since this discussion does not involve any of these topics, this is the last mention of them.
This will be the question section.
[But you're severely crazy if you believe the content of the news should be partially determined by those who simply offer it up for free as a way of cutting costs.]
What else is there (cutting costs that is)? Aren’t interviews given freely? Don’t eyewitnesses, experts and officials offer free content?
[You're foolishly blending what are supposed to be two separate entities here. News business and the Entertainment business.]
What is news if not entertainment? Weather comes with moving graphics and live outdoor video. Sports consists almost purely of highlights. Stories, like the “infotainment” we’ve been speaking of, have catchy music and headlines accompanied by interviews, on location broadcasting and amazing statistics. Sharp camera angles. Dramatic scene changes… Sounds like entertainment to me.
Now for some answers.
[Slot's for VNR's showed during news reports are not sold to the highest bidder, as you would have people believe.]
Hopefully this section wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll respond as if it was. VNR’s are chosen by the station, then cut and edited to fit time and available information. If, as you suggest, the reporter puts the flag us about “Company X” all the better. All this time you’ve been trying to fight for the journalist, when it’s the journalists decision to add or subtract from the VNR.
[But it's a nice idea to have a team of investigators spending time and effort the average Joe doesn't have to sift through spin.]
This follows my paragraph above perfectly. Instead of keeping the lights on, let’s not reinvent the wheel. VNR’s are free, already invented, news stories. Shouldn’t this give the newscaster more time to verify sources and “sift through spin?”
I will reiterate my point. Let the news organizations of the world employ enough people to keep salaries up and let “Company X” employ the rest. Supposing the news organizations had to add every PR or Mass Communications job to their payroll, there would be no news organizations to speak of. Unless, of course, the government started a couple.
I apologize for not responding to more posts, but this is long enough. Please keep posting as I will keep reading, but this is the last response I will be graded on for this topic and thus I will write no more.
Thank you for the great discussion.
My misconception was thinking that these VNRs were not a paid advertisement, when if fact they are. And even when there is no actual fee paid, these VNRs save these programs, sometimes thousands of dollars; i.e. paid advertisment no matter how someone slices it.
We need the FCC; in fact rules and limitations are not always a bad thing and are often there for our protection.
This morning I was running late to my eight o'clock class. Without a speedlimit, it is very likely I might have driven eighty MPH to school and hurt someone else or myself.
The question is: Where do we draw the line in terms of rules and regulations the FCC establishes and enforces?
Unfortunatley, seldom are things black and white, and I would say most of these VNRs fall somewhere in the gray area.
This is why the dialogue created here is so important on so many levels-finding a middle ground!!
Sometime back, The Today Show was fined by the FCC for using a VNR where they were paid a fee from Mars Candy. This VNR dropped names of things like M&Ms, etc. I would argue, if someone is tuning into the Today Show at 8:30 a.m., he/she is tuning in for entertainment. (Gray area!!)
Diabetes has become a problem in our country. Millions are afflicted and it is getting worse. How many of you have seen a commercial on television for a new fast-acting insulin? No, you haven't; they aren't there! This isn't something someone can just go out and buy, you have to discuss it with a doctor. And NO, doctors do not receive kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies! THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW!! Pharmaceutical companies spend less in year on any given doctor than most of you probably spend on your cell phone in a month! (Not a gray area and a good rule!)
As someone else said, and I agree, I am a student everyday and in every capacity. Being open-minded has allowed me to gain great experiences, personally and professionally.
We are all responsible for the society which we have created, and then we want to cry, "The media is dishonest!"
Many times I have come in second place at work because I was NOT the top sales person, but never have I felt," All throughout, I worried that I'd lost my virtue, sense of reality and respect for others during much of that time."
Gee, I wonder why he/she is preaching about dishonesty?
"
I, personally, think that there is no need to know where all the news received is coming from. If you were to write a review on the news cast then you might want to know where the source came from so there is no charge of plagiarism. Most of the time just receiving news allows a person to know where the story was placed, but they do not necessarily need to know each individual who wrote each news story. The television news anchors do not have time to say where all their news stories come from so the therefore there is no point to tell where every news story is coming from.
Posted By
Jessica Brown
I really doesnt bother me at all, just as i receive the news weather its true or false. i would rather know something than not no anything. it really doesnt matter to me where they get the news from because im not going around the world to look for it. so just as long as someone gets it for me im happy with that
Post a Comment