Fake News Stories Probed

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

[(1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

From FTA:

"You can't tell anymore the difference between what's propaganda and what's news," Adelstein said.

“Soviet Russia” jokes aside (who, by the way, had an entire Department for Agitation and Propaganda [wikipedia.org]), we are at that uncanny nexus where Capitalism and Bolshevism meet: where greed, unchecked, vies to overawe and enslave a receptive populace.

Prescription? Strap in; when the government fears the governed, voting won't get you anywhere.

Re:Yeah, this will go no where.

[Babbster]

And the Clinton administration did it before them. Unfortunately, everybody's trying to do it, and there are TV news producers who have apparently been happy to put it on the air...

Fake newspapers?

[andrewman327]

The Onion [theonion.com] anyone?

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:Yeah, this will go no where.

[chiphart]

This practice predates the Bush Administration for some time.

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 years, asking us if we're interested. And, if you don't know better, when you hear that someone representing Al Haig is on the phone and is interested in doing a news story about your company, you listen.

Whoa, I see that Vin Cerf [wbrtv.com] is on their board. Check it for the ubiquitous Homeland Security personnel.

And the penalties are:

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal regulator can levy fines of up to $32,500 US per violation.

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.

Re:The Nazis perfected this before WW2

[BrynM]

The Nazis perfected this before WW2 started. This is news?

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.

Nothing to see here

[porkmusket]

This has been happening for years. The only news here is that they are investigating it finally. I read about this same practice in my polisci textbooks 4 years ago. It's not a secret.

Re:Hey, I know where to begin this investigation!

[bergeron76]

He already own's the Fox Propaganda Channel. Why do you think Tony Snow (Fox's former anchor) is now the Press Secretary for the Bush Administration?

Re:Fake newspapers?

[FLEB]

These aren't infomercials. They're pre-recorded tapes sent to newsrooms with pre-recorded "reports" that the newsroom can slip in as an actual news story. The news stations, in laziness, throw their own chrome on it and call it "time filled". Meanwhile, the sender of the tape is getting cheap, legitimized PR.

All propaganda

[Cynonamous Anoward]

I took a class on public opinion and propaganda in college. Very interesting class. First thing we learned in the propaganda section, is that EVERYTHING is propaganda. Every person who ever writes, speaks, or otherwise communicates anything, subconciously puts their own spin on it. Therefore, to call it propaganda is not enough.

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.

Re:Baaaa.....

[Peyna]

I hear this more on the radio than I see it on TV. It's especially confusing when it's the same DJ/Radiohead that has been talking for the past 10 minutes about real news and then segues into a story about the great deals down at Joe Bob's RV's, but reads it like it's another news story.

This is part of the reason I've switched to NPR for the most part.

Re:Why though.. most major news is the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: While I oppose these video news releases, I do own and run a news website for the circus industry [circusnews.com], and I support the use of real press releases.

The fact of the matter is that press releases serve a very valid purpose in the news industry. As much as 1/2 (and by some estimates 3/4) of the news stories run start life as a press release. And no, its not a few big companies that do these, its thousands of small PR firms that put out the vast majority of press releases.

A short while back I wrote a guide to writing good press releases [circusnews.com] thats really aimed at mom and pop shops without anyone to write these for them. (if your new to this area of the news, this is an excelent primmer on the who what where when why and how these are written). For those of you who won't read it, let me cut and paste a few key bits:

Rule #1: Write releases to help the press do their job.
Editors run press releases when they can run the release as a story with little to no modification, making it a cheap piece of copy for them. Reporters pick up press releases when they can easily turn the release into a story, either meeting their quota (salary) or making an easy buck (freelance). Releases that are hard to turn into a story are usually skipped over / ignored by most of the media.

Rule #2 Make sure what you are sending out is newsworthy.
If your story is not newsworthy, it is not going to be run, no matter how well written it is.

OK, so their are valid reasons for press releases. As a news editor I run press releases all of the time. So why do I oppose these? Because they really are a take-it-or-leave it prospect. If I don't like a segment of a press release, I can (and often do) edit it. You really can't do that with these video releases, tipping the long standing balance so that it no longer favors the greater good.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[maynard]

Yeah. I own two copies of Outfoxed and presented a showing of the documentary to about fifty people with my digital projector. The first time I saw it I wished I had not agreed to the showing. Producer/Director Robert Greenwald has done some really good work. Outfoxed was not one of them. It was a hit piece, almost competently done. Look to his older work to see professional journalism. One impressive point about Outfoxed was it's budget - wow, was that a cheap documentary to produce. But it shows. Like the Blair Witch Project, it was a good low budget attempt. But it wasn't comprehensive. Greenwald, in particular, mixed opinion programming on Fox with factual news. As a resullt, idiots like O'Rielly took center-stage while real news programming was ignored.

*shrug*

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Jeffrey Baker]

Yeah, well. What did you expect? A few weeks ago the Fox correspondent in Lebanon said it was "widely believed" that Hezbollah officials were hiding in the Iranian embassy. When a correspondent on Fox says "widely believed", he means widely believed amongst Fox cameramen.

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:Agitprop

[Ambassador Kosh]

Here is what I have noticed. The people in power are the most likely ones to lie since they have more to lose. I don't believe the democrats and when they where in power they did a lot of lieing. However now that the republicans are in power they are doing more of the lieing simply because they have more opportunity to do so. If the democrats where in power again they would do the same thing.

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:Next: Increased Volume of Commercials

[wannabgeek]

Totally agree with you. I wonder why the television manufacturers don't attack this technologically - provide a button that cuts sudden changes in volume. I will set that off only when watching some thrillers (where I expect to be surprised with volumes) - but when watching any other program, I hate it when the volume is increased heavily for advertisements.

Re:No. Not 'enough said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, fella, at least try watching an episode of Perry Mason. It's not about facts, it's about innuendo.

If I stood on your lawn, pointed at your house, and yelled at every passing car "The man who lives here is NOT a child molestor! And he does NOT smoke crack!" ... it may be factually accurate, but it's not what people are going to remember.

Re:Good on the FCC, now go get Fox

[freedom_india]

The FCC should have stood up then. If they are going to stand up now, they will have to apply the rules to Fox as well..right?

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.

Re:Agitprop

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution? Voting reform. Allow third parties to enter the race through Condorcet voting methods [wikipedia.org]. These methods all but eliminate "tactical voting", meaning that under a Condorcet system, the best way of getting your ideas in the White House is to vote for your favorite candidates. Nobody likes the Democrats, they just vote for them to keep the Republicans out of office. Voting reform is the logical step towards removing corruption from the government and allowing it to represent the people.

Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Vandalism

[MillionthMonkey]

There is an art to Wikipedia abuse. If someone cites a Wikipedia article in some argument they're making, you can always just go to Wikipedia and edit the page so that they're wrong. But that's what a novice Wikipedia vandal does.

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.

There's more important fake news to investigate

[mclaincausey]

I don't like fake news in any form, but I think they should focus on false news coming out of the White House [truthout.org] first.

Re:Baaaa.....

[smchris]

Try watching The News Hour on PBS. Interesting, unbiased, fluff-free. Follow up

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.c gi/37/9592 [truthout.org]

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.

Use of Press Releases is a form of Bias

[sweetnjguy29]

One of the lesser known forms of journalitic bias is the use of press releases. A press release is an organisations take on an event. They spin facts to make the organization look great. Thats why PR departments always issue them...because they know they will always be printed verbatim in the newspaper. Usually with attribution though.

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_4-06-0 6.pdf . Also check out http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/ti tle47/part73.html and scroll down to section 1212 to read the actual regulation.

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.

Re:Agitprop

[Ubergrendle]

I don't really see the big deal to be honest -- this has been going on since the mid-80s at least (soon as betamax became economical to distribute).

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 blogs are keeping journalists a bit more 'honest' now. NYTimes, CBS, Reuters have all been stung recently...and they deserved it.