So I'm watching the news -- go figure -- and this story comes on about how former President Clinton is helping to reduce childhood obesity. He's standing in a school in Harlem and is joined by the CEO of Pepsico to announce that certain companies are going to put limits on what products they provide for school vending machines. The story says that "Kraft, Mars, Dannon, Campbells and Pepsi have all signed on." While the reporter says this there are tight camera shots of products bearing of these brand names. Question: did the reporter ask the camera person to video tape products laid out nicely? These products weren't at the press conference with Bill Clinton and his corporate buddies, so when did they get that footage? Maybe they did a little table display in the staff break room back at the TV station...hmmmm. What happened most likely, was the story included part of what the industry calls a VNR...a video news release.

Video News Releases are video pieces created by corporations or Public Relations firms and sent to news agencies to pass as news. VNRs are generally not sourced, so you don't usually know you are watching one. In fact, according to the Center for Media & Democracy about 40% of TV news stories are VNRs.

Now back to the news story. The VNR about what companies are doing to combat childhood obesity then has the CEO of Pepsico say that he too is a parent and that his company understand the importance of "helping children choose healthy lifestyles." I'm sure that's what motivates him to target kids with his brand of carbonated sugar water, which is just so good for kids. Next the story cuts to a spokesperson with the Snack Food Association who says that the problem is not what kids are eating, but the fact that kids are sitting behind a computer. How convenient. So what the hell is the Snack Food Association? They are a business consortium for snack food companies that seek to influence policy and public perception about snack foods. According to the Center for Public Integrity they spend thousands of dollars to lobby politicians in Washington. They also create VNRs, like this short response they sent out to combat the effort to put limits on the crap corporations shove down kids throats.

The story I am describing ran on WOOD TV 8 recently. We have seen VNRs on a regular basis over the past few years. One of my favorites from the past year was on WXMI 17 in February, where the news story was an announcement that Kellogg's was turning 100. The news anchor basically just read the media release sent out by Kellogg's and then used video footage of old cereal commercials that were provided by a service called PR Newswire. Yeah...give me more of those Fruit Loops. Any cereal that can change the color of the milk is what I crave.

In mid-November, the Center for Media & Democracy released a new study on VNRs called "Still Not the News," wherein they found that most VNRs used on TV stations across the country did not source who produced them. The study is part of an ongoing campaign to the Federal Communications Commission to demand that TV stations source any and all VNRs used during their broadcasts. Personally, I'd like to see VNRs banned, but that won't happen unless more of the public demands such an action. At a minimum, the public should at least know they are being fed commercials that are passing as news stories. To see more local examples go to the News Dissection section of the GRIID site.

Elections and the future of Telecommunications

So, the anti-war vote that ousted many Republicans and put the Democrats in charge of the House and Senate has got to work in favor of the public when it comes to telecommunications policy like VNRs right?? Actually, no. The telecommunications industry as a whole and lobby groups like the National Association of Broadcasters has historically provided more money to Democratic candidates. In this past election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics the telecom industry gave $62 million to GOP candidates, but $133 million to Democratic candidates (source). If the past is any indicator of what that means, then it doesn't look good for the public. 2007 will be a crucial year for new telecommunications legislation, where issues like ownership deregulation, internet neutrality and cable franchise fees will all be on the table.

The last time a major telecommunications act was passed was in 1996. While Clinton was President, this legislation, which received overwhelming support from Democrats, resulted in the deregulation of media ownership rules that particularly led to the consolidation of radio ownership in this country. For example, Clear Channel, which is about to be bought up, before 1996 owned a few dozen stations nationally. After the 1996 telecom Act was passed Clear Channel owned over 1,200 stations nationally. They own eight stations alone in this market. If what happened in 1996 is an indicator, then it is likely that whatever telecom legislation gets passed in 2007 will not be beneficial to the public...unless of course people organize to defeat the proposed legislation that is being drafted by media corporations. You can join this effort by being part of a national campaign called Stop Big Media.

Locally, you can support the work of the GR Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID), by attending our annual fundraiser called The Newzees -- December 8 at Wealthy Theater. It's a crazy look at the news of the past year with stories like how deer are attacking our children. You won't wanna miss it, because frankly, we couldn't make this shit up! For details go to www.griid.org