Faux, maybe; novel, no: the Bush administration is catching hell for its 'video news releases'

National Review, April 11, 2005 by Byron York

At President Bush's March 16 news conference, a reporter noted that the White House has banned paying journalists to promote the Bush agenda--a reference to the Armstrong Williams scandal--but then asked, "Your administration continues to make use of video news releases, which are prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government.... Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money?"

Bush answered by citing a Justice Department opinion that says producing video news releases, or VNRs, is legal, "so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy." He said he expected departments to follow that ruling, adding that it would be a good thing if local television stations that used such stories would tell viewers the source of the material.

That the issue of VNRs came up in a news conference dominated by the war in Iraq, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and the Social Security battle is a measure of just how strained relations have become between the administration and some members of the press corps. Although it appears to be a minor contretemps, the issue of VNRs has actually become something of a cause among the president's critics.

"The White House isn't backing off its plan to replace real news with faux news," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote on March 17. (Some of the president's adversaries have adopted the phrase "faux news"--they like it not only because of its obvious meaning but also because of its slightly less obvious play on Fox News.) "Faux news is good news--to Bush," declared Salon's Eric Boehlert. "You can be sure that the administration's faux news will always be good news," chimed the Times's Frank Rich.

The controversy began in March 2004, when the Times published a front-page story headlined "U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny." The article reported that "federal investigators"--the Government Accountability Office--were "scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists." The purpose of the video reports was to praise the new Medicare prescription-drug law, and they featured footage of President Bush "receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering" when he signed the law.

Furthermore, the Times reported, the segments were narrated by a woman posing as a reporter who concluded the story by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan, reporting." In fact, the Times said, Ryan worked for a TV production company that had "hired her to read a script prepared by the government."

Although a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services explained to the paper that the use of VNRs was a "common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Democrats expressed shock and anger at the news. New Jersey Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg, for example, pronounced the practice "disturbing" and "a covert attempt to manipulate the press."

Many commentators agreed, their opinions perhaps best summarized by a Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial headlined, "Karen Ryan, you're a phony." Democrats demanded more investigation by the GAO, which ultimately concluded that the stories violated the law against government-funded propaganda. The problem with the reports, the GAO found, was that there was no disclaimer within the actual stories--even though, when the videos were sent to television outlets, there was a disclaimer immediately before and immediately after them indicating that they had been produced by the Department of Health and Human Services.

From there, the criticism mounted, resuiting in the question at the president's recent news conference. But one aspect of the issue that has received little attention is the fact that VNRs have been used by the government for decades, and that the most enthusiastic and sophisticated purveyor of VNRs prior to the current controversy was the Clinton administration, which produced releases that were identical in style to those produced by the Bush administration. On examining VNRs from both administrations, it appears there are only two differences. One, the Clinton VNRs were produced in a more openly politicized way. And two, when the Clinton administration distributed its reports, no one appeared to notice or be upset.

One very brief portion of the GAO's report noted that the Department of Health and Human Services had provided investigators with copies of Medicare VNRs produced by the department in 1999--during the Clinton years. Like the Bush VNRs, those videos carried a disclaimer before and after the report, but none inside the body of the piece. The stories were narrated by a woman who signed off with "Lovell Brigham, reporting."

As it turns out, Lovell Brigham was not a reporter. She was, in fact, a Clinton appointee who worked in the public-relations department of HHS. In addition, the 1999 VNRs were produced in the midst of a fight between the Clinton administration and Congress over the issue of prescription drugs, whereas the Bush Medicare VNRs were produced after Congress passed the drug law and the president signed it.