| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Fake News |
Topic: Fake News
| Author | Message |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/2/2007 3:01:01 PM | show profile Over a ten-month period, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) documented television newsrooms' use of 36 video news releases (VNRs)?a small sample of the thousands produced each year. 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. The VNRs and SMTs whose broadcast CMD documented were produced by three broadcast PR firms for 49 different clients, including General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One. In each case, these 77 television stations actively disguised the sponsored content to make it appear to be their own reporting. 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. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/2/2007 3:06:26 PM | show profile Here's a fresh topic. Let's have your thoughts. |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 11/2/2007 4:50:16 PM | show profile As a broadcaster ... ...here are my thoughts. First of all, I need to hear WHICH stations did this. You can't just say "77 stations from the largest to the smallest markets". What's their idea of large? New York? Chicago? Indianapolis? Also, I need to hear who OWNS these stations. Are we talking rinky-dink mom and pop TV stations in Altoona, PA, or are we talking a CBS O&O? Sadly, though, this doesn't surprise me. Most of the problem is corporate greed. Owners don't want to pay a penny more than they have to for the operations of their television stations, which across the board are actually among the most profitable businesses in America, with profit margins often in the high 20s! Even LOAN SHARKS generally only make a 25% profit. So what do you do? Like any other superficially-minded manager, you spend money only on what the public actually sees: the on-air talent. But luckily, these days, in all but the largest markets (Chicago, LA, NYC) you don't even have to spend THAT much on the talent, since there's an ENDLESS supply of newbies who want SO badly to be on TEE VEE that they're willing to work longer hours for less money than the current crop. ****PAUSE FOR SEXIST BUT HONEST RANT**** Women anchors, even in the larger markets, inadvertently feed into this problem because they can not only parlay their looks into an on-camera job, but also into a high-profile marriage. Even the smallest of markets have rich businessmen, and what better trophy wife for the owner of "The Tri-State's Largest Chevrolet Dealership!" than the cute little anchorette on "NBC 34, Your Source for News!". These women can successfully undercut their male counterparts because, let's face it, once Joe Slick slides that platinum band on her finger in their oh-so-publicized Local Wedding of the Year, she no longer has to WORK for a living, so now her on-air career has turned into a HOBBY. ****END OF PAUSE FOR SEXIST BUT HONEST RANT**** And so the downward spiral continues (who says we don't need unions anymore??), as the people you see on the air grow younger and less experienced by the day. And that's for TALENT. Where the REAL economizing takes place is BEHIND the scenes. Sadly, these days the oldest and most experienced people in a television newsroom are the ones you're seeing on the screen (where the management is hopefully getting the most bang for its buck). Generally speaking, whatever age bracket you see on the screen, subtract about a decade for the folks who are actually putting the news together. It's no longer unusual to see a newly-minted 21-year-old college graduate running the assignment desk or even LINE PRODUCING (for those of you not in television, that's the top-dog show producer) the 6PM or 11PM news at stations in cities as big as Detroit, Denver, or Pittsburgh. Now let's stop and think about this for a moment. 20-somethings actually RUNNING television newsrooms, making decisions about WHAT the news will be. Yes, I realize that there will always be a much older, much more experienced News Director and General Manager. But the day to day, show by show information gatekeepers these days are KIDS with virtually NO JOURNALISTIC EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER. So it's no surprise that these kids have no problem airing a VNR because they honestly don't know the difference between a package fed to them from their affiliated network, or from a PR organization. Scary. But that's the state of television news today. Everything is done on the cheap, at the expense of JOURNALISM. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 11/2/2007 5:15:42 PM | show profile Re: Your sexist rant. Is that the fault of the comely women anchors, or the fault of the management who hires them? And more importantly: Is it just MEN who are undercut, but also the WOMEN who might be much more talented journalists but the MEN who run upper management don't feel are as "hot"? |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 11/2/2007 5:44:07 PM | show profile There's enough blame ... ...for everyone. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 11/3/2007 9:43:09 AM | show profile I disagree. You cannot "equally" blame what you feel is an unqualified hot babe for accepting a job because the men in charge feel that her hotness will bring in more viewers. And a system that puts a premium on women's physical appearance over her journalistic qualifications hurts female journalists as much or more than it hurts male journalists. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/3/2007 9:46:08 AM | show profile I'll take Christine Amanpour any day over ninety per cent of men delivering news. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 11/3/2007 7:51:17 PM | show profile --Is that the fault of the comely women anchors, or the fault of the management who hires them?-- Why is it anyone's fault? Like it or not, TV anchors are primarily performers. Maybe they can gather and write the news, but it's not necessary, anymore than it's necessary for a newspaper reporter to be able to lay out pages, sell ads, or perform the other duties necessary for the newspaper as a whole. If a TV newscast can get higher ratingss having the news read by an attractive woman who knows nothing about newsgathering than by an unattractive Pulitizer-Prize-winning reporter, they should do it. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 11/4/2007 12:16:15 AM | show profile dribble, i understand what you're saying -- that local TV news anchors aren't journalists and don't have the same set of qualifications as say a reporter working in a non-visual medium. However, just because someone thinks having a hot chick read the local news on-air will bring in higher ratings, doesn't mean local networks should do it at the expense of hiring a more diverse range of people. First, there are a lot of things that could theoretically grab more eyeballs -- showing sex and violence tends to do that, for example. Doesn't mean the local news should start doing more of that. Second, I think that companies shouldn't always just adhere to what they assume are the basest impulses in their audiences. For example, if the audience in a market is majority straight white people, and management felt that people other than that won't attract as many viewers, does that mean they should have a policy against putting a qualified black anchor on the air? or a qualified openly gay one? Sometimes, the media needs to push against "conventional wisdom" about what people will accept -- and often, people are far more accepting than what "conventional wisdom" says they will be! |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 11/4/2007 12:36:50 AM | show profile Hey print people ... your envy is showing. The VAST majority of television news anchors (both local and network) ARE journalists, just as much as print reporters, if not MORE so. You don't get promoted to the anchor chair without having proven your ability as a reporter. I know the tee vee people get MUCH more exposure (and pay) than the print types, but that's no reason to cut people down. They just happen to have talent AND looks, and chose a different path than you. This post-adolescent prom queen envy is getting pretty tiresome, no? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 11/4/2007 2:27:12 AM | show profile I am not saying that at all. I am sure that there are many TV anchors that have are excellent reporters and have outstanding credentials. That said, that isn't the reason that most people tune in to watch a TV news programs. And there are certainly many TV news people who aren't particularly bright but got their jobs because they are physically appealing and have a good camera presence. --dribble, i understand what you're saying -- that local TV news anchors aren't journalists and don't have the same set of qualifications as say a reporter working in a non-visual medium.-- |
| noname1234 | Posted – 11/4/2007 9:13:57 AM | show profile Matt, there may be "print envy" out there, I don't know -- but I'm not a print person and I don't consider myself a journalist either, so I'm not sure if I suffer from it or not. I do understand what DD is saying here -- that to be an anchor, there is a set of qualifications, one of which is being telegenic since you are in a visual medium. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 11/4/2007 9:21:23 AM | show profile Also wasn't the discussion here about local, small-market TV news anchors? Matt, you asserted that in these markets they routinely hire unqualified hot babes who treat the job like a hobby, but you also just said that proving your reporting chops first is a prerequisite. According to your first assertion, the management at those stations apparently feels it can better reach its business goals by having a good-looking (young) woman anchoring, regardless of her journalistic background. So apparently to those managers, reporting chops AREN'T required, based on what you're saying. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/4/2007 9:55:14 AM | show profile 'one of which is being telegenic since you are in a visual medium.' Add this qualification - can you deliver the news flawlessly and can you speak coherent sentences while being whipped by 200 mile per hour winds. John Roberts comes from my turf - was a veejay with firm hair. Do miss Laura Logan on CNN - I think she's wasted at CBS. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 11/4/2007 10:58:02 AM | show profile I am a sometimes print journalist, but honestly, if I was going to be envious, it wouldn't be of a journalist, television or otherwise. Now J.K. Rowling, OK, there's someone worth being envious of ... --Matt, there may be "print envy" out there, I don't know -- but I'm not a print person and I don't consider myself a journalist either, so I'm not sure if I suffer from it or not.-- |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 11/4/2007 11:20:40 AM | show profile There are exceptions ... ...to every rule. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 11/5/2007 5:24:26 PM | show profile yes there are.. |
