Next up on Propagandagate: Herr Gropenfuhrer

[Partha]

Embar:

http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2005/index.asp

[Embar Angylwrath]

Thanks Partha.. will digest that later.

[Aabe]

They were nearly three times as likely to be positive as to be negative for the principal newsmaker or issue. ABC was clearly the most positive of the bunch. NBC was the most neutral, and CBS fell in between.

Given I had heard CBS was third in news overall, I was expecting them to be either most negaitve or most positive, very interesting.

This is a great article. These guys have a tough job sorting all this stuff out, rating every blinking program that airs. My hat is off to them. I can't usually take more than an hour or two of TV at time.

<my annoying analytical side kicks in> But it would be interesting to see what the positive and negative material was. ( here is John Kerry! He has a great smile and wonderful new suit today, from the profile you gotta know this guy works out and that hair is to die for, rumor has it because of his flipflopping that if elected the terroists will make the US into a big smoking hole.. (that would be 4 positives and 2 negatives, overall I would not rate it as a positve commentary)

But again seriously, the info they did provide is a ton and great service, thanks for the link Partha.

[Chants Evensong]

Relbeek and Partha, you have convinced me that you know very little about VNR's, the GAO's recent opinions on the issue, and the issue in general. But I can't really fault you. You have simply assumed that something sinister is going on with VNR's because the MSM has told you so.

It is amazing at how brash the MSM is on this issue. Being the main users of VNR's, they know how easy it is to edit out the origin of a VNR, and often do. Therefore they also know just how meanigless the legal standard articulated by the GAO is.

The real story here is not the government manipulating the media. It is how the media passes off VNR's as thier own work because they are too lazy to produce thier own news segments. Butyou won't get that story.

Instead, the main message you hear from the MSM is right out of the Democratic playbook: Bush is a media manipulator. And you two were sucked in by it.

The levels of irony are too numerous to count. But your arguing that there is no liberal bias in the MSM is one of them.

[Relbeek Einre]

Funny, I've said very little about VNRs other than citing the original report, Chants. I must be very persuasive.

I also find it amusing you refuse to defend your allegation that the MSM since 2001 is still liberally biased. Might I additionally caution you, in making such a defense, that Fox News is part of the MSM, as are the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.

I think the general tone of the neocons is starting to infect you, Chants. You used to be more about substance than this.

[Kulaf]

"I think the general tone of the neocons is starting to infect you, Chants. You used to be more about substance than this."

*cough*

[Chants Evensong]

Funny, I've said very little about VNRs other than citing the original report, Chants. I must be very persuasive.

Yes. Your silence on the VNR issue, which is at the core of the article you cited, constitues persuasive evidence that you know little about them.

I also find it amusing you refuse to defend your allegation that the MSM since 2001 is still liberally biased. Might I additionally caution you, in making such a defense, that Fox News is part of the MSM, as are the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Although I never made that allegation with the misleading particularity you assert, I do beleive that the MSM is liberally biased. Furthermore, you commit the fallacy of generalizing from the particular to the general where you imply that since particular members of the MSM are not liberally biased, the MSM in general is not liberally biased.

Finally, I am not interested in turing this thread into an argument over the general political bias in the media. I am interested in arguing whether the media's reporting on the use of VNR's is evidence of a liberal or conservative bias in the media, which is the most relevant argument elicited by the original report. But your inability to track track this argument is making me lose interest....quickly.

I think the general tone of the neocons is starting to infect you, Chants. You used to be more about substance than this.

One, I am a neocon. Two, my tone has been no different from yours. Three, my analysis of VNR's, how they are used by the media, and the GAO's legal standard constitute the most substantive and insightful part of this thread.

[Relbeek Einre]

Chants, you injected the general media bias argument as a justification for the use of VNR's. I quoted it, in fact. Now you're saying you aren't asserting a general media bias. Jesus, man. Stand by your claims.

But I will say this: I haven't had a lot of time to get into the whole VNR issue right now, I've been pretty busy and that's a meaty section of the argument that deserves more time than I'm currently able to give it. And if that is frustrating to you, I apologize. I was kinda hoping Partha would take up the slack for me.

[Chants Evensong]

Making side-bar comments not germane to a thread does not mean I wish to transform and derail the thread. But point taken.

http://www.prsa.org/_Publications/magaz ... 4spot2.asp

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302710.htm

These two links should get you started on VNR's and the relevent legal standard for government production of them.

[Relbeek Einre]

Heh, you picked the PRSA. Damn you. I've done web work for them. But not really an unbiased source, ne?

[Partha]

You're introducing facts not in evidence, Chants, when you claim that they 'often do' edit out the source of the VNR. Although the GAO report says the majority of them are excerpted in some way, they do not state that the majority have the source edited out.

Further, I don't see what nit you're picking with me. I said:

1) The GAO has already determined in at least two examples that VNR's released by the Bush administration DO constitute 'propaganda'.

And this is true, by your own link.

2) Given that many people claimed to have voted for Bush based on 'moral values' and have indicated that they feel Clinton was 'immoral', saying 'Well, Clinton did it too' is not exculpatory. If you profess to be more moral than someone, it behooves you to be more moral in practice than them, not just as sleazy.

This is not addressed at all by your link and subsequent arguments, although I will note that Bush administration spending on PR was reported at $88 million dollars last year, which was higher than any year in the Clinton administration.

3) The corporate media has been, if anything, overly protective of George Bush. Had Clinton been found to have a male prostitute waved into the press corps, for one example, the media coverage would have been much larger in the corporate media and more sustained than it was. There are a number of other issues over the past 5 years where the administration has gotten a much easier ride than it would have had the corporate media been devoted to making 'hit pieces' - Cheney's energy policy meetings, Halliburton's actions, the obfuscation of the real numbers involved in the prescription drug plan. Those are just a few, I'm sure Relbeek and Klast have plenty more examples.

Once again, not addressed by your link - the only thing you go on regarding that are airy statements of belief.

[Chants Evensong]

You're introducing facts not in evidence, Chants, when you claim that they 'often do' edit out the source of the VNR. Although the GAO report says the majority of them are excerpted in some way, they do not state that the majority have the source edited out.

Well. Far be it from me to overlook how far you've come in grasping some of the fundamental issues concerning the Great VNR Debate. Yes, I am noting your newfound understanding that disclosure is key.

Congratulations, Partha. You have emerged from the darkness somewhat.

But the real problem is not whether the VNR does the disclosure within the VNR itself. If the each story segment of the VNR involved in the Medicare flap had flashed a DHHS or CMS logo in the corner of the screen, that would have identified the source of the video footage. Simlarly, if the anchor lead-in scripts (which the MSM is free to ignore) had mentioned that the following segment came from the Department of Health and Human Services, that would have constituted disclosure as to the lead in scripts.

The problem is that consumers of VNR's (i.e., the MSM) have little incentive to make the disclosure and that is where any meaningful disclosure takes place.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/t ... _news.html

BOB GARFIELD: Barbara Cochrane, president of the Radio and Television News Directors Association says she believes most stations and networks do routinely identify the source of outside video, as per the ethical guidelines of her organization. But those within the VNR industry roll their eyes at that assertion. Doug Simon, of VNR producer D.S. Simon Productions, says disclosure is the exception, not the rule.

DOUG SIMON: From what we see, there's a very small percentage - perhaps less than 5% - that actually has identified what the source of the video is.

BOB GARFIELD: That makes him uneasy, but VNR producers can't do such disclosure themselves. Each station uses a different on-screen typeface to identify video, so the onus is on those airing the material, and dependent as they are on the illusion of a far-flung newsgathering operation, with tentacles throughout the community and beyond, there's little motivation to do so.

So the MSM is really not a bunch of duped rubes trapped in Bush's House of Usher. They are willing accomplices.

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3698

The truth is, there's plenty of blame to go around in the aftermath of the Medicare video news release (VNR) flap. Journalism groups slammed the Bush administration for "deceptive practices" after the disclosure in March that the Department of Health and Human Services had released a taxpayer-funded VNR--made to resemble a news report--touting its new Medicare plan. "Outside the bounds of ethical behavior," huffed the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

But using VNRs to push products and policies has been common practice for two decades or more. Thousands of these videos are produced every year. Groups from county governments to multinational corporations rely on VNRs to get their message out. It's often cheaper than buying advertising and more credible to the audience.

It is the MSM's treatment of this VNR fiasco that has me steamed. They know damn well what the problem is with VNR's, the lack of disclosure, the responsibility to make it, and that they are the ones with the most control over disclosure. They also know that the VNRs put out by Bush pretty much followed the same format as Clinton's as to disclosure. They use press releases all the time, which is essentially the print equivalent of a VNR, but they rarely tell you when they do.

But they refuse to acknowledge thier role in the entire fiasco AND they are pushing an anti-Bush/Republican angle to the public. That's like CBS stonewalling with the forged documents fiasco yet simultaneously pushing the AWOL story. It's idiotic and, in my opinion, shows a liberal bias.

As to your demand that I answer certain pints that you made previously in this thread, I think that's a little presumptuous of you. The points you make are rather petty and inconsequential, in my opinion. Particularly where you appear so courageously impervious to the liberal bias evidenced by its treatment of this VNR fiasco.

But if you insist. As to you "moral values" argument, I do not find the government's use of VNR's to be immoral. I do not find Clinton's use of them to be immoral, I do not find Bush's use of them to be immoral. That's because I understand that meaningful disclosure occurs at the network, not the VNR.

As for you claim that the MSM lack of coverage of Gannon, Halliburton, Cheney's private meetings, etc., shows a soft-on-Bush approach to the news, I disagree for an obvious reason. The MSM media has covered these stories -- a lot. Perhaps not to the satisfaction of someone very far to the left would think they deserve. But they were covered. Nearly every major media outlet did a story on them, often times more than one. But the coverage was for whatever reason, simply not enough for these far left wingers. Therefore, to them, conservative bias must be the cause.

Similarly, I sensed a liberal bias in the Eason Jordan fiasco. I followed that story up until he resigned from CNN. It went on for a couple weeks. I didn't think the MSM covered it enough. In fact, they did not cover it at all, zippo, zilch, until after he resigned. By that time, it was over.

[Partha]

Well. Far be it from me to overlook how far you've come in grasping some of the fundamental issues concerning the Great VNR Debate. Yes, I am noting your newfound understanding that disclosure is key.

Congratulations, Partha. You have emerged from the darkness somewhat.

You know, it's funny. I went back over every post I've made in this thread, and in none of them did I say anything about disclosure being key or not, nor did I say that VNR's were illegal - I said (and it still holds true, even now) that Bush's administration has been dinged at least twice by the GAO for distributing what they call 'propoganda' - which means it does not meet the disclosure criteria.

I never argued in this thread about the disclosure criteria, Chants. You automatically conflated my position either with Beek's or with some strawman you built that you are now enthusiastically tearing down while simultaneously insulting me. A for effort, old man, but an F+ for comprehension.

It is the MSM's treatment of this VNR fiasco that has me steamed. They know damn well what the problem is with VNR's, the lack of disclosure, the responsibility to make it, and that they are the ones with the most control over disclosure. They also know that the VNRs put out by Bush pretty much followed the same format as Clinton's as to disclosure. They use press releases all the time, which is essentially the print equivalent of a VNR, but they rarely tell you when they do.

But they refuse to acknowledge thier role in the entire fiasco AND they are pushing an anti-Bush/Republican angle to the public. That's like CBS stonewalling with the forged documents fiasco yet simultaneously pushing the AWOL story. It's idiotic and, in my opinion, shows a liberal bias.

Once again, you're railing against something that doesn't exist within the facts of the linked NYT article. As you yourself pointed out -

Finally, it also notes that networks can, have, and do often edit out the origin of the VNR where the VNR contains that information. Since that information can be edited out beyond the control of the source of the VNR, it makes the legal standard somewhat useless, in my opinion.

Now, how is that not acknowledging that some of the networks or possibly all of them have complicity in it? YOU YOURSELF were the one who pointed it out from the article!

(Incidentally, there is an article on this subject AND an op-ed in today's Chicago Tribune. In both, they also state that networks have and do sometimes edit out the source of the VNR.)

As to your demand that I answer certain pints that you made previously in this thread

Except, of course, I did not demand that you answer them - I simply pointed out that your post did NOT answer them, and since the first part of my post was factually confirmed by YOUR link, I did not see why you were attacking me as ignorant on VNR's or mischaracterizing my position on them, since I never detailed it OR my knowledge of them beyond comparing Bush's record with VNR's to Clinton's.

But if you insist. As to you "moral values" argument, I do not find the government's use of VNR's to be immoral. I do not find Clinton's use of them to be immoral, I do not find Bush's use of them to be immoral. That's because I understand that meaningful disclosure occurs at the network, not the VNR.

I personally, understand that meaningful disclosure happens at BOTH the network AND the VNR - it is the duty of the maker of the VNR to disclose fully, it is the duty of the network to disclose fully - as the GAO says. Certainly there have been times where the networks have been at fault for editing. However, as previously stipulated by your own link, there are at least two occasions where the fault has lied WITH the VNR, NOT the networks - and it is, therefore, by GAO rules, 'propoganda'.

Now, would you like to continue trying to insult me? Trust me, that can go both ways, and you will be highly displeased if it does.

[Relbeek Einre]

As for you claim that the MSM lack of coverage of Gannon, Halliburton, Cheney's private meetings, etc., shows a soft-on-Bush approach to the news, I disagree for an obvious reason. The MSM media has covered these stories -- a lot.

Bzzt, wrong. As of ten days ago, two of the big three networks didn't cover Gannon at all. CNN gave it moderate coverage, and FOX News of all media gave it the most attention. Odd, really.