PR spots that are incorporated into news without disclosure

[liveoaktx]

Was watching something on Cspan yesterday about whether it is important for a so-called news entity (magazine, newspaper, etc) to disclose when it represents a partisan interest. Seems to me the NCLB/Armstrong debacle is only a very small part of what we should be pushing for.

The news as it comes to us is not transparent. I don't think I really care if there are a lot of right-wing nutjobs flapping their jaws on the news as long as it is clear, at that moment, that he or she is not a strictly neutral non-partisan spewer, but actually represents certain agencies which have definite viewpoints. Or, if the news is actually created from press releases or videos representing a particular viewpoint, that should be obvious as well. For example, if the local news anchor at 6 is getting a mostly done news package that he only has to tweak a little (such as do an intro for it at the front end), I'd like to see that labeled as coming from so and so news-media company, and then be able to track back to who actually paid for that video to be made.

[Eric J in MN]

1. We definitely need more disclosure.

Put the word "Public Relations" on the bottom of screen if that is who produced the video.

[CoffeeCat]

2. PR generates 75 percent of all media stories...

If I'm remembering the stats correctly--75 percent of all media stories (print and broadcast) are generated by some type of PR device (press release, press kit, a story pitch from a PR person, Video News Releases, press conferences).

Great reporters will use PR tools for story ideas--on which they do their own investigative work, writing and research. Lazy reporters will file a story doing very little work; relying heavily on the press release and info from the PR source. It all depends on the reporter.

Also...broadcast media outlets appear to be most guilty of repackaging PR tools as stories. Dailies are better then broadcast (especially major dailies).

It would be nice to have that "label" from the PR firm or company--to understand when we were receiving PR info--instead of news. However, that will never fly. PR agencies and in-house corporate PR people are paid to secure media coverage. Media coverage is sought for credibility and exposure. A logo/label on a news piece would denigrate that coverage to "ad status."

Reporters would not be happy with this either. This would bring to light their use of PR tools--which is a no no. If the parties involved would not go for this (PR people, reporters), I can't imagine it ever happening. PR people are necessary evils to reporters. Reporters don't even like to admit to themselves that they need PRsters. So, it's doubtful they'd want to announce it to the world. Conversely, PR people are beholden to their clients--who would not stand for a "PR" logo on the coverage they secure.

I like the idea though and I admire your reasoning for wanting the label. Most political reporting (esp broadcast) is a reiteration of talking points from both sides. There's barely any journalism or investigation that veers off of the canned sound bytes offered.

It's sad.