Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News

 

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

" Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A., " a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of " another success" in the Bush administration's " drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it " one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The " reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the " reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature " interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with " suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as " independent" journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.

Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.

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. " There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press, " Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies.

In interviews, though, press officers for several federal agencies said the president's prohibition did not apply to government-made television news segments, also known as video news releases. They described the segments as factual, politically neutral and useful to viewers. They insisted that there was no similarity to the case of Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist who promoted the administration's chief education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, without disclosing $240, 000 in payments from the Education Department.

What is more, these officials argued, it is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government. " Talk to the television stations that ran it without attribution, " said William A. Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. " This is not our problem. We can't be held responsible for their actions."

Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper " covert propaganda" even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports " that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."

It is not certain, though, whether the office's pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a few federal agencies have stopped making television news segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and " purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers.

Even if agencies do disclose their role, those efforts can easily be undone in a broadcaster's editing room. Some news organizations, for example, simply identify the government's " reporter" as one of their own and then edit out any phrase suggesting the segment was not of their making.

So in a recent segment produced by the Agriculture Department, the agency's narrator ended the report by saying " In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting for the U.S. Department of Agriculture." Yet AgDay, a syndicated farm news program that is shown on some 160 stations, simply introduced the segment as being by " AgDay's Pat O'Leary." The final sentence was then trimmed to " In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting."

Brian Conrady, executive producer of AgDay, defended the changes. " We can clip 'Department of Agriculture' at our choosing, " he said. " The material we get from the U.S.D.A., if we choose to air it and how we choose to air it is our choice."

 

 

3. Berlusconi's TV blitz splits Italy ahead of polls

 

Latin has not been the language of Italy for centuries, but two Latin words understood by everyone from a peasant to the president have dominated the general election campaign.

'Par condicio, ' which roughly means 'equal conditions' or 'equal time', is the name of a law that requires Italian broadcasters to allocate fairly the amount of airtimegiven to political parties in the period before the April 9 elections.

However, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's open contempt for the principle of the law, which he has branded a 'gag' and a 'freedom killer, ' has divided his own centre-right coalition and even provoked a rare intervention by the head of state.

So, once again on Tuesday, those two little Latin words were on the front pages of Italian papers, alongside stories about racism among soccer fans and the latest small-town bank robbery.

Berlusconi, whose family controls three private television channels and who, as prime minister, has indirect influence on state broadcaster RAI, launched a media blitz about a month ago.

He has appeared on everything from serious political shows as well as soccer programmes, breakfast shows and even a traffic programme.

The centre-left opposition, headed by former European Commission President Romano Prodi, says Berlusconi is abusing his office in an attempt to trim its lead in opinion polls.

According to estimates by TV watchdogs and ratings organisations, he has appeared seven times as often as Prodi.

Technically the law becomes effective when parliament is dissolved. That was to have taken place on Jan. 29 but President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi extended parliament's life to Feb. 11, heeding the government's request for time to wrap up business.

The opposition cried foul, saying Berlusconi was just using parliament's new lease of life as a ruse to tiptoe unfettered from TV show to TV show.

However, in a move widely seen as critical of Berlusconi, Ciampi said at the weekend that the principles of the law should be observed immediately.

Luminaries in Berlusconi's 'House of Freedoms' coalition are divided over Ciampi's intervention but the heaviest blow to the prime minister from within the centre-right camp came from the speaker of the lower house.

Pierferdinando Casini, who is also head of the centrist Union of Christian Democrats (UDC) in Berlusconi's coalition, clearly took sides with the president and his stand against Berlusconi made the headlines of all top papers on Tuesday.

In an editorial, Rome's left-leaning La Repubblica newspaper said the law would not be necessary if TV journalism applied the principles of objectivity and impartiality.

Berlusconi has said one reason he feels he has to go on the air to defend himself is that he is often attacked by left-wing newspapers.

'Is it possible that he still does not know the difference between newspapers and television? ' La Repubblica asked, accusing Berlusconi of charming his way on to the airwaves he controlled directly or indirectly.

The newspaper said Ciampi had been forced to intervene regularly to remind everyone of the 'basic rules' of political campaigning.

Il Giornale, a newspaper owned by Berlusconi's brother, hit back at the opposition's criticism of the prime minister with a headline on Tuesday that said: 'Politics and TV – all the follies of the left.'

Perhaps the only thing that newspapers of all political persuasions had in common on Tuesday was they shared two little Latin words packing a powerful political punch – 'Par Condicio'.

⇐ Предыдущая123456789Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: