Fake news

From SourceWatch
Revision as of 17:11, 19 December 2009 by Rsand (talk | contribs) (SW: updating kennedy broken link)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The term fake news has become synonymous with government and corporate sponsored pre-packaged news provided as video news releases (VNRs) and audio news releases (ANRs) to news outlets.

CMD reports on fake news

"Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed" is the title of a report released on April 6, 2006, by the Center for Media and Democracy. The multi-media report tracked television stations' use of selected VNRs over 10 months. The report summary states: "CMD identified 77 television stations, from those in the largest to the smallest markets, that aired these VNRs or related satellite media tours (SMTs) in 98 separate instances, without disclosure to viewers. Collectively, these 77 stations reach more than half of the U.S. population. ... In almost all cases, stations failed to balance the clients' messages with independently-gathered footage or basic journalistic research. More than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety." [1]

On November 14, 2006, CMD issued a follow-up report, "Still Not the News: Stations Overwhelmingly Fail to Disclose VNRs." Although the research period for this report was shorter -- only six months -- dozens more undisclosed VNR broadcasts were documented. The report summary states: "Of the 54 total VNR broadcasts described in this report, 48 provided no disclosure of the nature or source of the sponsored video. In the six other cases, disclosure was fleeting and often ambiguous." [2]

Along with the release of each report, CMD and the media reform group Free Press filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting enforcement of the Commission's sponsorship identification requirements with regard to VNRs. In August 2006, the FCC sent letters of inquiry to the owners of the 77 television stations named in CMD's first report. [3] [4] (PDF)

Fake news fines

In September 2007, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission issued two notices of apparent liability, announcing its intention to fine Comcast Corporation $4000 for each of its regional cable channel CN8's five undisclosed VNR broadcasts that were documented in the Center for Media and Democracy's "Still Not the News" report [5], for a total of $20,000. [6]

In the first notice, for CN8's broadcast of the Nelson's Rescue Sleep VNR [7], the FCC said that the "extensive images and mentions of the product" triggered the need for VNR disclosure. [8] The second notice was for CN8's broadcast of the General Mills (Wheaties) [9], Trend Micro [10], Allstate [11], and General Mills (Bisquick) [12] VNRs. In it, the FCC broadened its explanation for the need for VNR disclosure, saying that "the VNR itself was the 'valuable consideration' provided to CN8." The second notice also faults CN8's broadcast of the four VNRs, saying their promotional content goes far beyond the acceptable "fleeting or transient references to products or brand names." [13]

History of the term "fake news"

A search of the Nexis media database indicates that the term was initially used more broadly. In May 1989 Adweek writer Barbara Lippert panned ads in which former newsreader Linda Ellerbee appeared "in a fake news setting" hustling Maxwell House coffee. In August that year Ad Day's Ed Buxton criticized the use of "the fake news bite" where reporters re-enacted news events as part of a news story.

However, it was a cover article by David Lieberman titled "Fake News" in the February 1992 edition of TV Guide that popularized the term. In his article Lieberman took the media and PR industry to task over video news releases. He argued that if footage from VNR's were used in news it should be labelled so that viewers were aware of its origin. If not, he argued, media outlets risked undermining their own credibility if they "pretend out of pride that what they broadcast is real news, instead of labeling it for what it is."

"There's a good chance that some of the news they [the public] see will be fake. Not that it's necessarily inaccurate. Just that it was made to plug something else. And it's something the PR community has grown skillful at providing," he wrote. The original article generated a dismissive response from the PR industry. However, in June 1992 the Public Relations Service Council saw the need to assemble a committee to develop standards governing the level of disclosure in VNR's.

In April 1993 TV Guide once more returned to the subject with an article titled Fake News: All the PR that News Can Use". (See the Video news releases article for a more detailed review of the responses to Lieberman's articles.)

While controversy over VNR's diminished in the 1990's, when it resurfaced in 2004 following a Government Accountability Office investigation into government funded VNR's, the fake news description was well established.

In late June 2005 the U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment barring the White House and federal agencies for one year from contracting with PR firms and journalists to secretly promote policies through the use of fake news. "The passage of this amendment is a critical victory for the American people who, as a result of these secret government contracts with writers, broadcasters, and public relations specialists, have been unable to determine whether they are receiving real, objective news or government-sponsored propaganda," said Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), who chairs the Future of American Media Caucus and sponsored the amendment.

"A properly functioning democracy depends on a news media that is free of any conflicts-of-interest, especially with the government that it is supposed to be holding accountable." [14]

SourceWatch resources

External links

Government reports on Williams/Ketchum PR contracts

Articles

Retrieved from "https://dev.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news&oldid=454894"