Fake News Stories Probed 299
An anonymous reader writes "From the article: "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has begun an investigation of the use of video news releases, sometimes called "fake news," at U.S. television stations.
Video news releases are packaged stories paid for by businesses or interest groups. They use actors to portray reporters and use the same format as television news stories.""
Agitprop (Score:5, Interesting)
Prescription? Strap in; when the government fears the governed, voting won't get you anywhere.
Re:Agitprop (Score:3, Insightful)
Ditto for most of the predigested/fake news we get. Used to, it just went unchallenged, but now it's a lot harder to get newsoids out without someone putting up a site about the Emperor's New Press Release.
Re:Agitprop (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge gap between people who try to find out what's true and people who just accept whatever they want to be true. The more lies there are out there, and the more people realize there are lies, the more people will just decide to believe in whatever reality they like. For instance, no matter how much I point out the relentless corruption of the government in office now, my father has settled on the idea that Republicans and Democrats are basically equally corrupt, which means he won't vote on corruption as an issue anymore. He just has no faith in the reliability of any news source that he or I might find, and he is busy with his life, so he doesn't bother finding out what is true.
When we allow a variety of false "truths" (Kerry's more of a flip-flopper than Bush, Gore claims to have invented the internet, there are WMD in Iraq, there's a connection between Iraq and 9-11, etc.) to stick around on TV long after they are show to be false, we decrease the believability of any TV news.
There is meaningful damage done to our society everytime the bar for truth and honesty in news reporting is lowered further.
Yes, the internet has been great for getting news out to some people, but for most people, it's still just as hard to tell whether to trust little green footballs or rawstory as it is to decide between Fox and (if there were a liberal network I would put it here)
Re:Agitprop (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Agitprop (Score:3, Informative)
I am a liberal and a skeptic (some might say cynic), if you are particularly interested.
Re:Agitprop (Score:4, Interesting)
Heck if you really look at it are there any actual republicans or democrats in power? Republicans are supposed to be conservative, small government, fiscal responsibility etc. When is the last time you saw that? Highest debts then ever, more spending, bigger government etc is the rule right now.
Same goes for democrats. You know actual liberals that really are. People that look at what reality is like now and see what can be changed to actually improve it. It used to be that democrats where pro change for the better but where also for fiscal responsibility. Now we have democrats that spend every dime we have and the changes they want are the changes that benefit mostly their own power and the other rich people. I have not see a real democrat or republican in office in a long time.
If you actually believe in the democrat or republican party lines I don't see how you can vote for people in either party in good concience given the state that both parties are in.
So in essence I don't believe that anything that republicans or democrats say is really the truth except where it happens to work in their favor and selective telling of the truth is often worse the lieing.
Re:Agitprop (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you name some examples of Democrats that are doing this? How is it that "democrats are spending every dime we have" when they control neither the White House nor either branch of Congress? Seems to me that one of the few advantages to being completely out of power is that you don't have to take the blame for the actions of the people who are in power...
Re:Agitprop (Score:4, Informative)
versus
Clinton budget surplus [cnn.com]
Re:Agitprop (Score:5, Insightful)
--Kosh Naranek
Re:Agitprop (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know those 'latest cancer breakthroughs' or 'scienfitic studies have shown today that...' -- they're ALL press releases. Guaranteed most newsrooms don't have health reporters trolling through medical journals, making informed opinions about what should and should not be broadcast.
Its a sad reality, but why is this a story all of the sudden? At least bl
Re:Agitprop (Score:5, Insightful)
Need Identifying Marker (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to know that you are watching an infomercial, without consulting the online TV gude, is to wait until the end of the infomercial. At its conclusion, the television station will announce that "The previous broadcast is paid programming."
The obvious way to help the innocent TV viewer is to simply require all infomercials to prominently display the same distinguishing marker on the lower left of the TV screen. Given the content of some of these infomercials, I propose displaying an icon resembling Bozo the Clown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'fake news' indeed (Score:5, Funny)
In that case, excellent showdown in store (Score:2)
Re:In that case, excellent showdown in store (Score:4, Funny)
Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Vandalism (Score:5, Interesting)
A pro knows to edit the article in a very subtle way, so that it looks like the person has poor reading comprehension. Let's say the person cites a Wikipedia article with a sentence like this, in order to support the argument that Colbert is a Democrat.
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Democrat.[12][13]
A novice might change it to this (correctly preserving footnote superscripts, which thankfully do not need to be relocated here from elsewhere in the article):
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Republican.[12][13]
It makes the person appear to be wrong- and the vandalism is obvious. That's like swapping Eurasia for Eastasia. There's no way he could have misread that.
But change it to this
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert has even been described as a Democrat.[12][13]
and the person looks not only wrong, but plausibly wrong because it looks like he can't read. That's what makes successful Wikipedia vandalism an art.
Baaaa..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only are these a cheap shot, they're also very annoying, especially when they are every-other-page, as is often the case with my local paper, the D&C [democratandchronicle.com]. I'm always being told that "scientists are amazed by the adhesiveness of new DentureBOND(tm) Maximum Strength Dental Adhesive. So strong it can hold a cow to the ceiling by means of only a few drops! A scientifical (sic) revolution!"
These "fake articles" are always rife with phony quotes, sources, pictures and media-esque mini-headlines. It was only a matter of time before this happened too. The moral is, advertisers will do anything, anything to get you to buy their crap.
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since I barely watch other news stations anymore it must of been, I remember there was a big thing all over the place (not just on Daily Show) about that exact same thing and they showed 4 different videos from different parts of the country, all 4 had the exact same "correspondent" reporting on four different things.
Suprised it took the FCC this long to decide to go after them.
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:2)
Since I barely watch other news stations anymore it must of been, I remember there was a big thing all over the place (not just on Daily Show) about that exact same thing and they showed 4 different videos from different parts of the country, all 4 had the exact same "correspondent" reporting on four different things.
Suprised it took the FCC this long to decide to go after them.
You aren't imaginign things. I saw the same episode.
For Your Viewing Pleasure... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e__3STe4jwU [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is what you saw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZCQPtauDRU [youtube.com]
The FCC is a whore who fucks the public (Score:5, Insightful)
You are suprised it took this long for the FCC to go after them? I'm not. The FCC is a whore to the highest bidder.
They sold most of the radio spectrum out from under the public. Why do you think you have to pay such outrageous prices for cellphone service? Those are public airwaves you are using--they should be free. Cellphones should cost about as much as a landline to use.
Then there is WiFi. Do you know what part of the spectrum it is on? The same one which microwave ovens interfere. We should have multigigabit wireless networking with a range of kilometers. Where you could essentialy have acess to a citywide LAN just by plugging a networking card into your computer.
I'm suprized the FCC went after them at all. Tomorrow I expect to see someone from the FCC Reading from a corporate letterhead and holding a briefcase with money falling out of it, saying: "We apologize to our corporate spons..I mean friendly companies. Our accusations were unfounded and a mistake. Have a doubleplusgood day. :-)"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fun to watch, not news.
Ironic then that the fake parts for comedic effect are clearly discernable on the Daily Show, yet intentionally disguised on the real news.
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is part of the reason I've switched to NPR for the most part.
Fake newspapers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, I have seen just about every one of the "fake news" infomercials. Being a nightowl helps. Anyway, should be obvious to anyone that these are fake. The begining and the end of the infomercials have disclaimers that affirm their paid commericial status. I think that they should have disclaimers on the bottom of the screen that remind channel surfers of this fact, but overall they are not well hidden.
Hey Mods, guess what? By modding this comment up and making three easy payments of $19.99, you will have expended less than $60! Mod now! Apply directly to forehead! Apply directly to forehead! Apply directly to forehead!
Re:Fake newspapers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read a real newspaper if you want to be informed. Actually, read several.
Re:Fake newspapers? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently not entirely
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
Re:Fake newspapers? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fake newspapers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:2)
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why Bush appointed Patricia Harrison, one of his politik propagandists and former GOP Chair, to be Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. She has been directly involved in precisely the "fake news" we are discussing: "[A]s a senior department official, Patricia Harrison, told Congress last year, the Bush administration has come to regard such 'good news' segments as 'powerful strategic tools' for influencing public opinion." http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.
See also "Destroying PBS": http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm [commondreams.org]
On my local public radio I have heard gems like, "Is it possible for an atheist to have a morality?" When they ran "Socrates, the Soldiering Years" interviewing a military academy historian while Bush was beating the Iraq war drums, I said, "You've _GOT_ to be kidding!" And turned the dial. Forever. It is wishful thinking to believe there is U.S. broadcast media untouched by the rising fascism. Question _everything_ your TV and radio tell you.
Re:Baaaa..... (Score:2)
No, more like a sex-toy. I *wish* all they did to me was shave my head and sell the hair once a year.
Poltical, too. (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Hey, I know where to begin this investigation! (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to remember there's a word for this. Uhhh propagation? Proposition? Proletariat? No....
hmmm...
Ah, yes. propaganda!
Re:Hey, I know where to begin this investigation! (Score:3, Interesting)
Propagation? Proposition? Proletariat? (Score:2)
Oh wait, that's the word for the news agencies that allow this stuff to penetrate.
So to speak.
Why though.. most major news is the same thing (Score:2)
I think it's a double standard myself.
All the major news outlets do this, especially on tech, drug, and copyright stories.
If I had a dollar for every time they simply released an RIAA/MPAA press release as a news story i'd be able to retire right now and leave a considerable estate to my great grandchildren.
Then there were the many blatantly fabricated stories published on the net neutrality debate, and the l
news (Score:4, Funny)
Nuff said.
No. Not 'enough said. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:5, Insightful)
While the left is guilty of this when basing their opinion on flaks like Orilley, the right is equally guilty of it when they consider Daily Show etc to be news.
Which goes to show, not all idiots belong to one party or the other. Idiocy is rampant on both sides.
Ah! (Score:2)
Seriously though, am I the only one who watched Outfoxed [outfoxed.org]? And don't get me wrong, I don't blame Fox, I think apathy is a social problem and businesses are in the business of widening their bottom line. Or maybe ignorance *is* bliss? I've probably got the whole thing backwards.
Heh. Posting to myself and of course Doonesbury.. (Score:2)
Re:Heh. Posting to myself and of course Doonesbury (Score:2)
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't hear that remark, but I did hear Fox News report that the woman:
Obviously, little or no effort was made to check these "facts" before they blasted this info around the world, and I heard no apology when it turned out that none of this was true. If this woman was in fact claustrophobic, she should sue the network for defamation of character for broadcasting
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it turned out that no such person was hiding in Iran's embassy. As far as I know, no reputable news outlet ran with this story. Therefore, searching on "hezbollah iranian embassy" on Google gives you a pretty complete list of right wing warmongering disinformation sites which should not be taken seriously. The first outlet to report the truth -- that "Hezbollah leader not in Iran's embassy" -- is the People's Daily News of China.
How sad is it when a major news provider in the USA is peddling disinformation while the Chinese communist party's official news organ is reporting the straight scoop?
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:2)
Take a journalism course. You'll find that Fox News is about as good as any other
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:4, Informative)
The first time I noticed this was when Johnny Cochran died (I don't actually watch Fox "News" very often since to any thinking person it is disgusting). I was reading the story and was looking for more information (specifically whether he knew he had a tumor and for how long) when I noticed the story on FOX News was virtually identical to the associated press story. In fact, 18 of 44 paragraphs in the FOX piece were copied verbatim from the AP article with no changes whatsoever. Most of the other paragraphs had extremely minor grammatical structural changes, but were essentially identical to the original AP content. The rest was political spin (innuendo) that really had no place in the article.
What really struck me most was that FOX News in the by-line claimed credit for the article. Under the title the article clearly said "Tuesday, March 29, 2005" followed by "FOX NEWS". The Associated Press was not mentioned until the very end where the article said "FOX News' Jane Roh and The Associated Press contributed to this report"; however, even this was misleading since as far as I can tell Jane Roh's function was nothing other than minor cosmetic editing (ie it should have said, Jone Roh edited the article).
This is just one of a great many actual example of journalistic hackery at FOX "News" that happen all the time. You can believe that it is "only their opinion shows" or that they have serious journalistic talent, but if so you are an idiot. Look I'm not trying to insult you with ad hominem... it would just take somebody pretty fucking dumb not to see the puppet theatre at Fox.
And no, all of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC correctly attributed the article and did not add political spin to it as FOX did. They are not just as bad as FOX. Now the article does not even exist on FOX's site... much easier to get away with this crap when you sweep it under the rug. I have copies though of the "FOX POV" and original AP, if you doubt.
Re:No. Not 'enough said. (Score:2, Interesting)
Advertorials are advertorials (Score:2)
Why do they like it? Readers actively hate it (I know I do and our in-house research ag
plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you) (Score:5, Informative)
Ketchum Produced Fake News Reports to Promote No Child Left Behind. The Department of Education contracted with Ketchum public relations to produce and distribute "news" stories featuring a fake reporter announcing the availability of tutoring under No Child Left Behind. According to the Associated Press, the Administration paid $700,000 to Ketchum for the segment. The video includes a story featuring Education Secretary Rod Paige and ends with the "journalist" saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." [AP, 10/10/04, Washington Post, 10/15/04; People for the American Way Release, 10/11/04]
Department of Education Also Paid Ketchum to Code Media Stories Based on Favorability of Coverage. According to the Associated Press, the Department of Education used taxpayer dollars to devise a rating system to score news coverage of the federal No Child Left Behind law. The system rewards points to news outlets that air reports that, among other things, say that President Bush and Republicans are strong on education. The news rankings also rank individual reporters on how sympathetic they are to the Administration's program. [AP, 10/10/04]
Bush Administration Paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 To Promote No Child Left Behind
Armstrong Williams Paid By Bush Administration To Tout NCLB. USA Today revealed that the Department of Education paid political commentator/talk radio host Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative on his program and to other African American commentators. During these efforts, Williams failed to disclose his contract with the government. [USA Today, 1/7/05]
Taxpayer Dollars Also Used To Create Fake News Programs For Bush Medicare Plan
Bush Used Taxpayer Dollars to Stage Fake News Stories To Promote His Medicare Bill. Bush's Health and Human Services Department also contracted with Ketchum to promote the president's Medicare drug benefit. Using the same public relations consultant, Karen Ryan, Ketchum produced a series of video news releases that included scripted interviews and pictures of Bush receiving a standing ovation as he signed the legislation. During the first two months of 2004, the pieces aired 53 times on 40 stations in 33 major media markets. [New York Times, 3/15/04; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 3/15/04; LA Times, 3/16/04; Lexington Herald Leader, 5/19/04]
* GAO Found Bush Administration Guilty. On May 19, 2004, the General Accountability Office (GAO) released its investigation findings into fake news segments produced by Medicare to promote the Bush Medicare bill. The segments, video news releases, were distributed to local television sessions to be run as part of the station's news programs. The segments contained no identifiers that they were produced by the government, which the GAO found violates the propaganda prohibitions of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003. The GAO concluded, "Because [Medicare] did not identify itself as a source of the news report, the story packages, including the lead-in script, violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition." [GAO, Decision in Matter of Center for Medicaid & Medicare Services - Video News Release, 5/19/04]
Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you) (Score:2, Funny)
I reckon we need a "scary" mod option...
Re:plenty of fake news for everybody (paid by you) (Score:2)
A More Indepth Look at "Fake News" (Score:5, Informative)
So this means... (Score:2, Funny)
im feeling fat already
And the penalties are: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the article, one of the reasons cited for running this crap is that it is free. Given what a station charges for air time, they could run this stuff every hour and still make a profit. Meanwhile, they want to up the fines for obscenity to millions of dollars.
So you want to see the real priorities of the current administration? Run their political propaganda (or the propaganda of their corporage supporters) and recieve a slap on the wrist. Say something that offends the radical religious right wing and get put out of business.
I, for one, do NOT welcome the rule of our new theocratic overlords.
As usual the top will be spared? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or what about the treachery at the Abu Graib prison, events which weren't merely denied but also covered with newsstories than absolutely nothing was going on down there. Or what about the US' private detention centre on Cuba were we only hear news about those dangerous and evil terrorists doing all sorts of naughty things when in fact they're only getting lawyers into gear in order to demand to be treated under international civilion rights which every human should be entitled to.
So... Please go right ahead with the investigation but if you guys don't start right at the top I can't help wonder if this whole deal is in fact fake in itself.
Documented in 1995 by 'Spin' (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Documented in 1995 by 'Spin' (Score:2)
See it here (Score:2, Informative)
"Artist Brian Springer spent a year scouring the airwaves with a satellite dish grabbing back channel news feeds not intended for public consumption. The result of his research is SPIN, one of the most insightful films ever made about the mechanics of how television is used as a tool of social control to distort and limit the American public's perception of reality."
old "news" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:old "news" (Score:2)
max fine = $32k? (Score:2)
I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but it seems likely that 32k is far below what a station would charge for that kind of service. If it's still a net profit, this is just pointless.
Re:max fine = $32k? (Score:2)
Re:max fine = $32k? (Score:2)
They just now figured this out? (Score:2)
I can't believe anyone is making a big deal out of it now - probably %70 percent of the news you have seen in your lifetime was paid for by a corporation.
I'm waiting for the commission... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean these weren't illiterate people, but they had decided that the local paper was liberal trype, so they quit reading it. I wish it was their land that they were going to take through eminant domain.
Nothing to see here (Score:2, Interesting)
Good on the FCC, now go get Fox (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you understand? We are on the SAME SIDE ! They are practically the same company !!
FTC suing Fox??? Are U saying the left arm should sue the right arm?
Get yer facts right before you spout such nonsense.
As if... (Score:2)
All propaganda (Score:3, Interesting)
To use the true terms, there is white propaganda, which is the average person stating something in their own words. They are trying to be objective, they have no ulterior motives, they simply state things in the manner which their brain happened to percieve it. There is Gray Propaganda, which knowingly leads you to one side, but at least makes an attempt to be truthful in the information they provide (i.e. they leave things out, but don't blatantly decieve). black propaganda is something which intentionally decieves.
I believe that the bush administration in particular is guilty of a larger than normal amount of black propaganda. I think corporations, especially in the U.S. typically engage in a good amount of grey propaganda, in fact, advertising itself is generally grey. But all it takes is one individual within the organization to push grey into black. In other words, doing these kinds of things isn't inherently wrong, but it is definitely treading a thin line between doing something self-promoting, and something very wrong.
So what you're saying is (Score:2)
VNR on the Daily Show (Score:2)
Newsiness (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't Watch TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Done. End of discussion. Can we move on now?
Maybe someone should investigate news stories (Score:4, Insightful)
Every single time I have ever had direct access to the truth of a news story I have found the reporting to be shoddy - ranging from quotes in a newspaper attributed to me from a company I quit two years earlier and claims that the company I work for is Australian (it was based in the US with no Australian office) or an entire article about my employer's partnership with a competitor (with zero basis in reality), to claims that a recent weightwatcher of the month (a friend of mine) used to eat many hamburgers a day (a complete fabrication). I regularly see my own employers making fabricated press releases that are reported as news with zero attempt at verification by reporters. Whatever level, whether it's business reporting or feel good local news, reporting is a web of lies. God knows how much truth there is in reporting from places like Iraq when they can't tell the truth about their own backyard.
On the TV end... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a television producer, mostly of commercial spots, but I've always been a very strong advocate of keeping news and advertising away from eachother. Unfortunately, the industry doesn't tend to agree. Promotions and other advertising schemes have been spilling into news in greater and greater quantities. This is especially true for soft news, or morning news, which is virtually a marketting team's playground. The Today Show did this whole "Wedding Giveaway" promotion, where they chose a couple to help fund their wedding, in exchange for them using certain advertisers, and following them through their wedding preparations. So my local station decides to do the same thing, on a local level. I must say, as a whole, it turned out quite well, but it made me feel icky having to make news packages that had contracts sitting behind them. I raised a lot of complaints to the general manager, the sales manager, and the news director about this, and none of them actually wanted to do it, but had basically convinced themselves that they had to do it for the company to stay alive.
In another incident, one of our clients weasled her way into using some of our news footage for her commercial, and she pushed the general manager (who does some production) more and more, until he actually ended up using video of one of our anchors doing a tag, which goes against some of our basic principals. When the anchor found out about this, she was furious, and forced them to retract the ad. I went down to my boss and basically asked him, "What the hell were you thinking?" And the response was basically that he knew it was wrong at the time, but he couldn't figure out what to do, and added that the station was going to be pushing the envilope more and more just to keep afloat. I don't buy it for a second. I don't know what the hawks up at ClearChannel corporate have been feeding everyone, but there are other methods of advertising that work just as well. To appease the client (and at the same time, give her a big, "fuck you"), I setup one of our side rooms as a news studio, with a totally different backdrop, and one of our sales team as an anchor... and made it OBVIOUSLY fake. I did everything possible to keep it from looking anything like our news: I went as far as coming up with my own news color scheme, with lower thirds and over-the-shoulders to match... anything to keep this fucking ad away from looking like our news. Since this is a small town, and everyone knows the anchors, it would be immediately obvious that this was fake. Our client was furious. "What happened to the lower thirds? Why isn't it in the newsroom? What happened to the over-the-shoulders?". She didn't want to come out and say it, but she was wanting our news image to help sell her service.
I'm not as concerned with actors posing as reporters, what I'm more concerned with, at this point, are reporters that are forced into the position of advertising as part of their news.
There's more important fake news to investigate (Score:3, Interesting)
Use of Press Releases is a form of Bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Editors love press releases from the newswires and from the government. It frees up reporters to report on other stories, provides coverage in areas where you don't have reporters, and they come at a very low cost. Journalists love them because it makes writing a story a cinch! You change a few words here and there, add your own interview, and tada, in 15 minutes you have a local story from a national newswire story. You can see this in action if you read the headlines in more than one paper...all the stories are similar, because they are getting their news from the same sources! Think of press releases like using modules and libraries while coding.
Corporate PR has gotten smart and started to make video press releases. Nothing wrong with this per se. But television news editors have gotten sloppy and forgot to attribute their sources. This is a huge no-no. Federal regulations require the disclosure as a condition of the license. When a broadcast covers a matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance furnished by any other entity, the broadcaster must make disclose this, and keep a list of the entity's governance on file for public inspection. Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4826 and the complaint made to the FCC at http://www.freepress.net/docs/fcc_complaint_4-06-
Requiring a notification is not censorship and is not unconstitutional in my book. It is similar to the "This Campaign Ad was Paid for by Bill Clinton" requirements for TV ads. Broadcasting on the radio and on the TV is not a right. You need a license from the government. So, you have to follow the rules you promised to follow. If you break those rules, your going to be fined.
You... mean... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Propoganda (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't blame the government for producing VNRs. Blame lazy news/program directors for airing them without any explanation.
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Yes, the government does more than just VNRs; I don't defend the use of pundits being paid to stump for the gov't on TV shows, for example. I speak solely of VNRs in the paragraph above.)
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:2)
My personal feeling is that they're all at least unethical in that they present themselves in a format which we're supposed to b
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, this will go no where. (Score:2, Interesting)
My favorite example comes from none other than Alexander Haig [wbrtv.com] and his friends at The World Business Review [wbrtv.com]. For a "small fee" they will produce a 60 Minutes-style segment about your company and services under the guise of being "about the latest topics, trends and issues in a variety of industries."
Check out their topics [wbrtv.com] and note how 1 or more companies are linked to each story. Checks were passed. How do I know? Because they call us every few
Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2 (Score:3, Interesting)
No, lying and propoganda aren't new. What's news about this is the current form of those lies are being further exposed (finally!).
Oh, and mentioning Nazis just doesn't have the oomf it used to in this "post-911 world". Next time, try mentioning terrorists.Re:Jon Stewart Testifies, says he's sorry (Score:2, Informative)