Misleading, sponsored “news” more common than you think
There has been an uproar about the use of “video news releases” paid for by corporations, politicians, and special interest groups to further their agenda. The beauty of these productions is that they look so much like a regular broadcast, and they are presented by the news media, that hardly anyone doubts their authenticity.
That is, of course, until the FCC threatens to fine broadcasters that don’t make the sponsorship clear.
There is another angle that the wonderful article in The Independent doesn’t touch on. Many of these releases are aired, not for sponsorship, but because small markets can’t afford to produce their own stories. Given something that looks good and costs nothing, broadcasters will air it (provided it seems possibly legitimate).
The job of journalists isn’t easy, and they are facing increasing competition from industries that are far newer and less ethically constrained (bloggers?). To compete, they cut corners. Instances like these are the result.
So long as the ads, because essentially they are, aren’t sponsored, the broadcasters don’t have to say they didn’t produce them by themselves. The practice will continue and grow, while average media consumer’s education about these practices will not. The result of this practice: reality is up for sale, and those with the most money to buy nice cameras and fake newscasters have the market cornered.
