Live blogging (or almost) from SPJ in Washington, D.C.

I would be live-blogging if the t-mobile wifi worked in the basement of the hotel. The all-too-frequent refrain of road-warriors about hotels, isn't it. So I'll post as soon as the session ends and I go back upstairs to the lobby.

This session is on the ethics of Video News Releases (and also the alarming rise in their uncritical use in broadcast.) First speaker, John Stauber (U of W, Center for Media & Democracy) they look for organized propaganda. Video News Releases, VNRs, are one characteristic of advertising, PR, or propaganda but are used widely in broadcast. Their CD is called "Fake TV News." They gathered about 1% of VNRs and also footage of how they air.

VNRs are okay to use, but it is not journalism. This is PR pieces that are made to look like news. They are biased because they are PR. The FCC in the last two weeks said that if a journalist didn't do the story, you need to LABEL or IDENTIFY the VNR as who produced it. KABC-7 in L.A. example: Quest VNR. The example was an allergy piece. The piece aired as if it was news. They acted like they paid for the report, but the report came to the station for free. Now the FCC has ruled that if they get the VNRs for free and thus replace reporters, they need to label it as such.

Example: Ethnanol Boom from Siemens VNR--the video that aired was introduced as if it was news reporting, and in fact the "reporter" used to be one. The item is tagged with the station logo as if it was produced by them. Siemens is the ethanol producer so it is publicity for them.

Moderator reads a piece from Natl Bcast who did not send a speaker: they defend the VNR as a first amendment issue.

Lawyer from RTNDA. CMDA studies have been "over-hyped." The lawyer tries to make VNRs from non-profits and government agencies equivalent to VNRs from corporations. Also claims that "stations can't tell where the VNRs come from," but can't they ask a reporter who works for them to find out? He continues with the old, self-regulation is okay, but FCC regulation is "bad." RTNDA's position seems like a cover for the parent corporations of the broadcast networks.

800 TV news stations use VNRs. He offers a lame explanation that if one speaker is identified as being from the corporate sponsor, that makes its use okay. Goes on with the strangest interpretation of the First Amendment that I have ever heard. That the 1st amendment is to provide MEDIA freedom from govt. regulation.

Sponsorhip identification is what this issue is called. Section 507 of Comm Act prohibits employees of stations from doing payola and then adding hype for product in a show.

Another speaker: Jerry Dunkley. Ethical and legal issues in the VNR question. "What is the point of a VNR or PR piece?" To get a journalist to cover a story. The nature of PR is to be one-sided and never cover any problems. They are designed to get free media coverage -- news story is free but more important, by casting the story as "news" it carries more weight than if it goes out in any form of advertising. If the news covers a story, it is more believable than straight PR.

So, VNRs control the story. They end up denying legitimate reporters access they need to cover the story as news. Access to the core of the VNR story is key. Independent journalist means that they cover the VNR issue without having the issue packaged. When VNRs are intro'd by "your trusted news anchors" the average viewer will take the VNR to be news and verified and thus "real" or true.

SPJ ethics code specifically addresses advertisers and advertising. So the ethics require that "who paid" for the VNR is identified. SPJ has taken up the ethics call, but again goes for industry self-policing and not FCC regulation. Cable and satellite is now included in "public airwaves." In the 1927 Radio Control Act requires clear identification of sponsorhip. Bcasters are diff than other media entities under that law.

What accountability do RTNDA or other professional organization have directly to the PUBLIC. Isn't that what the FCC regulation is designed to explicitly add to questions of what is bcast on the public resource, the "airwaves."

There is a clause saying it is okay to air free VNR stuff if there is no "quid pro quo." This is tied to payola discussions, too, as record companies can give free records to stations, but can go beyond that or it is payola.