We see them everyday. On your local news at 6, your morning “feel-good” news program and even on CNN and MSNBC. They are video news releases (VNRs) and they are coming directly from PR firms. Shocked? You shouldn’t be. VNRs have been around for a long time. But recently, a PR watchdog organization known as the Center for Media and Democracy, has been causing quite a stir among the general public about VNRs. The Center released two studies revealing stations that were airing VNRs and misleading the public into believing the station had actually produced the segment. The Center likes to refer to VNRs as “fake news”. Here is the deal with VNRs. A PR firm can make one and make it look newsy but the broadcast station cannot pass it off as one of thier own. It’s a tricky situation. And as for the Center…why is the PR industry only to blame? The Center claims it “strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism, media “of, by and for the people.” But why are the broadcast stations not to blame? They are the ones taking the release and airing it as thier own. The responsibility lays on broadcast’s shoulders on this issue.
The Federal Communications Commission has put numerous limits on VNRs and among them, includes that stations must divulge who the producer of the segment is. PR professionals, broadcasters and news directors are rallying together and claiming these regulations are violations of the First Amendment freedom of speech.
I think VNRs are definetly useful for both PR firms and broadcast stations. I do not think that a VNR should include a “reporter”, as in the Bush administration’s Medicare VNR mess. The trend of transparency will carry over into the world of VNRs.
hi, Ali,
I noticed your post on our reports, and just wanted to clarify a few things. One is that we’ve always said there’s more than enough blame to go around, with regard to undisclosed video news releases: to the TV stations, the PR firms, and the clients that commission VNRs but take little or no responsibility as to how they’re used. We and our colleagues at Free Press have filed formal complaints with the FCC, in regard to the incidents documented in each report. As you might know, the FCC launched a pending investigation into the 77 TV stations named in our first report.
Another clarification is that VNRs can be and are deceptive, even when they don’t include a “reporter” like Karen Ryan (who did the Medicare VNRs). For example, we’ve documented numerous incidents where viewers were presented with health “news” that misrepresented the results of independent research, overstated a drug’s or supplement’s potential benefits, and/or neglected to mention treatment risks or limitations, because the segment was derived from a VNR paid for by the company that makes the product in question.
I agree that TV stations and PR firms alike probably find VNRs to be useful, but unless VNRs are fully disclosed, they mislead news audiences. As the FCC has stated, viewers are entitled to know who seeks to influence them. That’s why we advocate for continuous, on screen disclosure of the client behind each VNR.
– Diane Farsetta
Center for Media and Democracy senior researcher and co-author of the two VNR reports:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/execsummary
Diane,
I would like to thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog. This is my first go at the blogging world and it still excites me to see people have read what I’ve written.
As an up-and-coming PR professional, I have learned about VNRs and we have discussed the ethical issues surrounding them. The point I was trying to drive home was that while PR gets most of the blame for “deceiving” the public, the broadcast stations are the ones who pass the VNRs off as thier own productions. I see VNRs everyday on news channels, both locally and nationally. Sometimes I can spot them, sometimes I can’t. VNRs are everywhere and I don’t necessarily believe them to be a bad thing. Yes, I agree some VNRs violate ethical standards but good stories do come out of VNRs. As long as the broadcast stations can present a balanced story, I don’t see a problem with using VNRs.
I understand your organization holds both PR firms and broadcast stations accountable but I believe PR gets the brunt of the blame. Unfortunately, when I tell people I am studying ethics in PR, they laugh and claim it’s an oxymoron. I want that reputation to change and with more discussions like ours, I think the future of PR could change for the better. Thank you again for your comment.