Advertorial adversities

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Sept, 2006 by Joe Saltzman

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION is not alone in worrying about television stations that air corporate advertisements masquerading as news stories. In fact, the FCC requires that broadcast stations disclose the corporate backers of "video news releases" or face a maximum fine of $32,500 for each violation. Enough violations and a station could lose its license. The FCC sets out a clear policy: All outside news reporting must be identified, disclosing the source of any video news release aired on a news program.

There are occasional lapses. A nonprofit consumer watchdog group reported to the FCC that 77 stations broadcast video features about products from 49 companies--including General Motors Corp., Intel Corp., and Pfizer, Inc.--without pointing out that they were produced by public relations firms representing these corporations. Viewers seldom, if ever, can distinguish between the real thing and the PR-produced video. Public relations firms have one goal: to make their video news releases look as if they are legitimate news reports, not propaganda. They pride themselves on creating products that look and feel like real news, reports that easily can be integrated into any news show without appearing as obvious self-promotions.

However, PR-produced releases merely are the tip of the iceberg. Ever since newspapers began, special-interest groups have tried to influence the quality and quantity of the news printed. Often, in exchange for advertising revenue, newspapers would print glowing stories of their sponsors and suppress any news that might hurt their heavy advertisers. Less obvious is the fact that the majority of news is generated by special-interest groups ranging from churches and charities, to businesses and corporations, to civic leaders and politicians, to movie studios and recording firms. Press releases flood newspaper and magazine offices, clogging all channels of communication. Those without the ability to inform the press, either through news releases or contacts, are left to the luck of the draw: the poor, the disenfranchised, the lone individual, and minorities usually are ignored unless they commit a crime or act in attention-getting ways.

Newspapers and magazines generally do not lead, but simply report the status quo, knowing what stories appeal to their readers. Where would the morning, afternoon, and evening news and magazine shows be if celebrities did not stop by to promote their latest film, TV show, recording, charity, or line of purses? Unpopular opinions and activities generally are ignored by the popular press, especially if a celebrity is not involved. There is the occasional expose or feature on non-special interest groups or individuals, but these are the exception, not the role. The normal flow of news concerns special-interest groups and their constituencies, not those on the fringes or others pushing society in new and different directions.

Television news falls into place. Special-interest groups offer "tips" to assignment editors, who promptly send camera crews and reporters to cover the staged events. That is one reason all local newscasts pretty much look alike--they all drink from the same trough. The PR-produced video news release simply is a more sophisticated technological extension of controlling coverage.

For most of the 20th century, women and people of color found it almost impossible to break the special-interest news barriers. Their stories were ignored unless there was a sensational or unique element: the first woman or person of color to do something no other woman or person of color had done before. Usually, though, items concerning these minorities required an enormous wrongdoing, such as the murder of someone in the white community or some attack on the status quo that threatened the peace and quiet, as well as the productivity, of a neighborhood.

This news-by-special-interests is nothing new. It has been going on since recorded history. Those printing the news learned quickly that keeping their readers happy was the surest way to fame and fortune. Antagonizing the readership could mean economic chaos, jail, or even death. So, the American press basically has played the game the way it always has been played--keep consumers happy with all the news that fits their interests.

There have been splendid exceptions, but not many. One reason the Hispanic news media has been so successful is that it caters to its audience in the same manner all media does. While its bias may seem different, it actually is the same bias all media has: an overwhelming concern to keep its constituencies happy and in the fold.

So, while the hue and cry over PR-created video news releases are well and good, they really do not attack the problem of biased news--news that seldom offends in language and content, and appeals to a specific group that shares the same prejudices and concerns about the present and future.

All of this is one key reason Americans so often are surprised when events overtake even the most conservative of news media and these outlets are forced to report stories they would much rather forget--stories that do not please advertisers or consumers, might offend gentility and sensitivity, may rock the status quo, and make the news media's constituencies unhappy. Better to continue, when possible, a steady supply of news about the latest celebrity baby or the most recent baseball player accused of taking steroids or yet another piece about sex offenders or restaurant health violations.