A new survey from the Radio Television Digital News Association reveals that we’re getting more local TV news:
For the fourth year in a row, the latest RTDNA/Hofstra University Annual Survey found that the average television station set a new record for the amount of local news aired. Over those last four years, the average amount of weekday news has gone from 4:36 to 5:00 to 5:18 last year. This year, it’s up another 12 minutes to five-and-a-half hours per weekday.
Of course, the distinction between quantity and quality matters a great deal. Local television news rarely distinguishes itself when it comes to, well, the “news.”
More evidence of that–if any is necessary–comes in the form of this clip reel put together by Conan O’Brien’s Conan show, which shows a large number of TV anchors reading from the same script about a story of immense public importance: a smartphone app for ice cream delivery:
As O’Brien comments, “I don’t find that funny–I find it scary.”
This would appear to be one more example of what Free Press and others were warning us about a few years back–fake news segments that are really just corporate PR planted in the middle of a “newscast.”
The FCC should, in theory, do something about this manipulation of the news on the public airwaves. But the commission has been extremely slow to act. As James Rainey reported in the L.A. Times (3/30/11), two stations faced slap-on-the-wrist fines for airing commercials dressed up as news–four years after the offending broadcasts aired.
(Insert pun about “getting the scoop” here)
But what’s being scooped into our living rooms doesn’t smell much like ice cream, does it?
The FCC should, in theory, do something about this manipulation of the news on the public airwaves. The Article
Wouldn’t that mean that someone would have to be done about the FCC who has never been on the public’s side in the Public Airwaves debate. Ever since clear channel took over the majority of the public airwaves, it’s been one ‘manufactured news item’ after another.
The air waves of today, with few exceptions are nothing more than a repeater cell for the corporate heads of Richards. Murdoch and Ailes, along with the budgies of despair make sure that no actual news gets out.
Los Angeles local news has to be the capitol of fluff news. I have seen local news all over the United States, and I honestly think that Los Angeles local news broadcasters may actually provide the least information of ANY news market in the nation. Is there any place as bad? Just curious.
What I like most is EVERY summer, on virtually EVERY local ‘news’ station, when he have the first few hot (90+) days, the inevitable fluff piece about the workers who have to work in the giant freezers driving forklifts and have to dress in snowmobile suits and mittens while the rest of us are sweltering…. But the public has a right to know, damn-it!
I think Stephan Colbert is the best at running commercial as part of his program on Comedy Central.
Frequently he does a complete (yes funny) segment but there is a product placement involved through most of the segment. Watch for them sometimes . . . I assume anytime a product is talked about or seen on his program he is paid for it.
These always bugs me but not the others that I watch the show with.
He never admits to this but, he does admit to making lots of money with his show.
Bain Capital is a majority owner of Clear Channel as well as Premier Network, the home of Rush, Hannity, et al.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications
The more you know!
Best solution: take all the televisions in your abode and throw them into the nearest dumpster. Nothing, N O T H I N G on television is worth the price you pay.
That’s one more reason why I haven’t watched local news in -decades.- i don’t miss hearing about car crashes, fires, police calls, etc. etc. from smarmy “News” anchors.
Last year I threw out my TV entirely, and I miss very little on it. Basically Mythbusters and Turner Classic Movies, and that’s it. I can watch the Daily Show and Colbert and watch movies online. I should have thrown out the TV years ago. I was surprised how painless the transition was.
This post by Peter Hart shows just how lame FAIR’s analysis can be at times. FAIR clearly has no concept of what a VNR (video news release) is. It’s the television equivalent of a press release. Nor does FAIR have any concept of how common they are.
Old-style press releases were text only and were faxed. Today, pre-produced video and anchor copy are delivered to TV stations and networks via the Internet. VNRs include everything from NASA footage of Mars rovers, to vehicle crash tests, to weekend box-office numbers and movie clips. It’s all provided gratis by organizations (outside of the news room) that want access to audiences.
High-tech manufacturers have been getting free advertising through VNRs for years. Perhaps the most egregious abuse of the public trust is the airing of drug and medical-device VNRs. These companies literally write their own news stories touting their products, and have news anchors read their copy for them. Audiences never know these “reports” were not generated by journalists or scrutinized by independent experts.
Conan could put together clip reels on many topics that look just like the ice cream reel. But, shouldn’t such analysis be the job of a professional media watchdog organization like FAIR? Yes, if they had a clue.
Guess What, you are so wrong. FAIR has been reporting on VNRs and this whole practice for a long time. Don’t condemn something before you know the facts.
Carvill admitted that minutes after Bush was elected ,a brain trust was formed and met to discuss ways to undermine George Bush for the next four years.A key to the plan was giving the press talking points every day.Rush Limbaugh would once a week play ten or so liberal commentators on different channels saying exactly the same thing against Bush.Word for word .Phrase for phrase.So for us this is old old news.Rush scooped ya
GlennP’s contribution cannot be repeated often enough:
“Bain Capital is a majority owner of Clear Channel as well as Premier Network, the home of Rush, Hannity, et al.
“Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications
“The more you know!”
They don’t call our media the Echo Chamber for nothing.
Jamie H., I’ve been reading FAIR Extra since just after it started publishing and I can recall no analysis of VNRs in all that time. If FAIR had written reports about VNRs in the past, this story would have linked to them.
Moreover, the analysis provided here does not even mention that the ice cream story was a VNR, much less provide any context or understanding of underlying VNR issues.
Instead, FAIR links to a report published by Free Press (which itself presents a poor understanding of VNRs) and then passes the entire mess off to the FCC which FAIR says “in theory, should do something…”
FAIR has whiffed entirely on the issue of VNRs and this ice cream post, lamely positing “a distinction between quantity and quality,” proves it.
Huh? Ya got that, FAIR? You dropped the ball on this one. Who knew about these insidious ads? You better post up some links, or else . . . .
You might do a search for “video news release” on FAIR’s website before attacking FAIR for not covering the issue of video news releases. We devoted two CounterSpin segments to the topic:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=2857
https://fair.org/index.php?page=2979
Other references to video news releases on FAIR.org:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=3323
https://fair.org/index.php?page=1370
https://fair.org/index.php?page=2476
I worked for a local radio station in the ’90s and we received lots of pre-packaged “news” releases, but most of it ended up in the garbage or was used as a source for a more balanced story. However, I could see how easy it would have been to have just used that stuff and package it as local news. Instead we had a great staff of reporters who were in the community doing hard reporting. This kind of work seems to be the exception to the rule these days when I turn on the local news.
FAIR’s links prove my point. Two of the three stories mention VNRs briefly, without providing examples or analysis. One mentions only “video news releases that can be spliced into news reports,” a comment that is more misleading than informative.
The 2007 story provides a round-up of commercial sponsorships, product placement, VNRs and tie-ins, most in reference to print media and radio (which don’t utilize VNRs). In that mix there are just two examples of VNRs and neither is identified as a VNR, nor is any informed analysis provided.
Regarding KOIN-TV FAIR says “Somehow … Providence Health Systems … spokespeople seem to keep showing up in (news) reports.” “Somehow?” Tell us how. THAT would be analysis. FAIR then calls the Providence spokespeople “the sponsor’s experts,” which is incorrect. Program sponsorship implies payment, but no money changes hands in the utilization of VNRs. This is not just of a lack of analysis, it’s misinformed.
Regarding WGN-TV’s use of Illinois Bureau of Tourism VNRs, again FAIR doesn’t identify them as VNRs, nor give specific information about why they (apparently) are objectionable. Instead, FAIR incorrectly refers to the Bureau as the “sponsoring agency,” and comments “No word on whether that’s the relationship the news department usually maintains with advertisers.” This again incorrectly implies a financial relationship between WGN and the Illinois Bureau of Tourism where none exists.
When FAIR confuses VNRs with sponsorships and advertising, they make my point for me: FAIR doesn’t understand what VNRs are, how they come to be used and why, how prevalent they are, what standards apply to their use, or what standards should apply. Beyond that, a more comprehensive view or informed analysis is far beyond FAIR’s present capabilities.
Note: I didn’t listen to the Counterspin programs. No time. But, it’s fair to say those are panel discussions, and not FAIR reports.
Sorry to bruise your ego, FAIR. Maybe you should respond by actually doing some reporting on the issue of VNRs.
You’re splitting hairs here, Guess What. You seem to be obsessed with VNRs–maybe you ought to write a book (or a whole series of books) on them. It’s not like VNRs are complicated like, say, the vagaries of factor analysis or the complexities of derivatives. When you write stuff like this–” Beyond that, a more comprehensive view or informed analysis is far beyond FAIR’s present capabilities.” (emphasis mine–TN) –one gets the feeling you have some kind of big ax to grind. What’s up?
FAIR started making known VNRs at least a decade ago if not earlier. So this is old news for me but not everyone and it needs to be repeated for every generation. Counter spin is the on air news show of FAIR so it is about what they talk about all the time. Maybe Guess What you should at least try to listen while you do something else or just make time so that you can comment with more credibility than scant speculation. Maybe you should write a book since you have so much knowledge of them. See if you can shop it around. Write the first two chapters and an outline and see what you can get. Alas FAIR can’t spend a lot of time on it. But it is a start.