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

National Review, April 11, 2005 by Byron York

But back then--and even now, when the news came out in the GAO report--there were no articles in the Times, no editorials that proclaimed, "Lovell Brigham, you're a phony." And there was no GAO investigation. Unlike today's Democrats, in the 1990s Republicans did not complain about the Clinton administration's practices; if they had, the VNRs would likely have been labeled propaganda. "These [stories] were not brought to our attention at that time," the GAO wrote in a footnote to its report. "Had we been aware of [them] ... the principles discussed here would have been applicable."

So far, there hasn't been much discussion of the Clinton administration's use of the technique. Recently, the Times published an extensive investigation into the Bush administration's use of VNRs. One sentence (out of a 5,600-word story) said "the practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts." That "which also occurred in the Clinton administration" was the article's only reference to the Clinton years.

But Larry Moskowitz remembers them quite well. Moskowitz, a former United Press International reporter, runs Medialink, a company that produces a large number of VNRs for both government and private-sector clients. During the 1990s, Moskowitz says, the Clinton administration joined with makers of VNRs to produce an enormous number of stories that might now be referred to as "faux news." "These guys were the most active in the business," Moskowitz says, although it should be said that Moskowitz saw nothing wrong with that then, just as he sees nothing wrong with it now.

His argument is that VNRs are never broadcast directly to viewers. Instead, they are sent to television-news organizations, which are free to use some portion of them, or all of them, or to throw them away. "Our view is as long as it is fully disclosed to the journalists that this is supplied by whoever is paying for it, and that that's clear and evident ... then we believe our job is done," Moskowitz says. It's up to the broadcaster to tell viewers what they're seeing. Moskowitz also contends that, as far as VNRs are concerned, "there's no different notion or concept from the written press release. All it does is provide the video equivalent of the quote that you would get in a press release."

He has a point. To illustrate that with a completely random example, on March 17, the Treasury Department issued a press release, datelined Washington, D.C., that began, "New Department of the Treasury estimates released today show that over 105 million Americans will have a lighter tax bill thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003." The release quoted Treasury secretary John Snow as saying, "Tax relief has resulted in a growing economy that is producing jobs and creating a better standard of living for Americans."