PRSA Issue Pork-Barrel Press Release and Letter to FCC

By B.L. Ochman The same way Congress creates pork-barrel legislation, the Public Relations Society of America displays vintage spin in a press release that purports to want to preserve media freedom, but also happens to want to preserve the right of PR firms to spin the news in packaged feature content. "PRSA URGES FCC TO AVOID ACTIONS THAT THREATEN OPEN, HONEST COMMUNICATIONS IN THE U.S." is the headline in the release that goes on to lobby against a ruling that would require the source of corporate-sponsored canned news footage to be identified on-screen.

Stations are far from blameless, since they almost never identify the source of video press releases, which make up a large percentage of what passes for news. But one way or another, whether the PR firms or the stations identify the source, the public has a right to know when it is watching spun news. Since neither the agencies nor the stations have taken responsibility, the FCC plans a ruling on the issue. I believe the public has a right to know, but I wish the PR industry and the media would police themselves.

Stations routinely run canned video news releases from corporations and agencies without noting the source. The Federal Communications Commission wants all news sources and sponsorship to be identified clearly, with an on-screen tag-line. PRSA agruges that the FCC may be too strict in its ruling and " frustrate the free flow of information among corporations, government entities, other institutions and the public that we all serve. "

In other words, they want to keep sending out canned news and spinning the presentation as they always have, without identifying the source. And they want TV stations to keep pretending that VNRs are news.

I've created video press releases for several clients, including one about the World's Largest Tomato Contest that I produced for Miracle-Gro. Thousands of stations ran the Miracle-Gro footage and not one identified the source. We certainly didn't hide the source, but the stations did. Even though the VNR was innocuous, viewers should have been told who produced the footage.

In a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, PRSA opposes ending the ban on same-market ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations because rescinding it will allow"the creation of single media communities that could result in a single media nation, which would have a disastrous impact on society."Our interest, they continue dramatically, "is ensuring the free flow of information and in preserving the integrity of independent and diverse media throughout our democracy."

So far so good. Then they slip in the money shot.

On the issue of forcing broadcasters to disclose the origin of all pre-packaged news, PRSA is worried that the FCC will make the regs too tight and that they will:

"inhibit creativity in competitive packaging of news and feature content by broadcasters and its preparers, as well as frustrate the free flow of information among corporations, government entities, other institutions and the public that we all serve."

B.L.-

Interesting post. I have to disagree with you, however.

I don't think it is mandatory that news outlets identify the source of a VNR. Would it be more transparent? Of course. But if they air it, they are deeming it to be newsworthy. That is their responsibility to present the most legitimate news. Any examination on that front should take place in the media, not in the PR industry. I don't think the PRSA should be necessarily opposing new requirements for VNRs, but I do think its unfair to brand them as spinsters.

My other point is that if we are to start identifying sources of VNRs in the nightly news etc, then by the same logic newspaper stories should have a bibliography at the end of an article, since most of the time, they have been subjected to the PR influence as well.

This issue is very much gray, and I don't know that there is a black or a white. Clearer definition of ethics within our own industry would help. The PRSA code of conduct is pretty much a joke.

"unfair to brand PRSA as spinsters?" Excuse me? That's what they are, that's what they do.

That release is classic spin. The headline makes it sound like the issue of disclosure is black and white and PRSA wants to save the world from government censorship of the media. The issue, as you note, is more gray than that.

There is a need for a clearer code of ethics in just about every industry, with PR very close to the top of the list.
BL