14 ms·
Local TV stations pushed the same Amazon-scripted segment
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoAccording to Amazon, it was just a press release, which they pushed via the same channels they push any other press release. (See the update at the end of the article.)
- shockinglytrue 6y agoI wasn't aware press releases could include a script for a presenter. Is this really common? What is the industry name for these packages?
- jimbob45 6y ago"Slow news day"
- a3n 6y ago"No one left in the newsroom."
- parliament32 6y ago"Copy/paste"?
- runawaybottle 6y ago“Controlling the narrative”
- testbot123 6y agoThey're called "video news releases" (VNRs): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release.
- shockinglytrue 6y agoThanks for this. I'm absolutely in shock this process is so industrialized, and that it has apparently managed to survive so long, and even through fake news being a huge topic in US politics
- Spivak 6y agoI would guess because there’s no real coercion in it. A company has every interest to make it as easy as possible to news outlets to run the story and to so they write the whole thing and leave it to the journalists if they want to do anything else with it. Some - many - are lazy and just publish it verbatim.
- a_t48 6y agohttps://mms.businesswire.com/media/20200521005268/en/793115/1/Amazon+Safety+VNR+script.pdf?download=1 https://mms.businesswire.com/media/20200521005268/en/793115/... It apparently can.
- crooked-v 6y agoActual press releases are clearly labeled for the end consumer as press releases.
- Spivak 6y agoYes but in that case it’s the news outlet that’s at fault. Most news orgs will at least say something like “Amazon released a statement today detailing…” If someone publishes the thing verbatim there’s no one to blame but the editor.
- MatekCopatek 6y agoWhether it's companies or governments, press briefings are already an entirely accepted thing. If you think about it, it's a scary concept - someone with a clear motivation to control the story picks journalists they like, invites them to a place of their choosing and feeds them a carefully constructed narrative. Flat out doing the segment for them seems like the natural next step.
- hanniabu 6y agoAnd if the reporters step out of line they're under threat to be banned from coming back which could be career suicide for losing the spot for your employer.
- _bxg1 6y agoBut there's a big difference: a press release is very up-front about being a curated message from the company. The scary thing here is that it's masquerading as independent coverage.
- iso947 6y agoThe concept is nothing new, PR firms have been providing packed content for news consumption for years, and news organisations with ever decreasing budgets and time simply use them verbatim. I’m sure there are criticisms about specific points, there always are, but I was aghast reading Flat Earth News a decade ago. I encourage everyone to pick up a copy for £3 on kindle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_to_Flat_Earth_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Davies#Critical_reaction_...
- downerending 6y agoThis is correct. Had a friend in PR who did this sort of thing. They have money and time, and local news stations do not. It's probably not so bad when the piece is on the wonders of asparagus and why you should eat more.
- marakv2 6y agoIt is that bad (imo), unless it's clearly stated that it's a paid advertisement (that's what PR is), then you cannot trust your news source.
- Spivak 6y agoBut it’s not a paid advertisement. It’s a corporate blog post published to an RSS feed for journalists to do with as they please. It’s worse than a paid advertisement because news orgs are running it for free and doing absolutely nothing novel or critical with it.
- marakv2 6y agoTheir not paying for it? That doesn't seem right.
- runawaybottle 6y agoThis dark pattern is particular bad when extended to critical things, like national politics. Political think-tanks did a mass campaign like this to build the narrative for the Iraq War. Heritage Foundation is one of the really bad actors here.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoThis is a little old, but is probably fairly relevant... https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/over-half-your-news-is-spin/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/over-half-your-news-is-...
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoI can't speak highly enough of Crikey, totally worth the subscription. Journalism as it was meant to be. TL;DR of the above: "2203 stories. 10 newspapers. A five day snapshot. Six months’ worth of research" "Crikey reveals the results of a six-month investigation into the role PR plays in the Australian media, finding that 55% of newspaper stories analysed were driven by PR."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoI have a feeling that the story may be past its "sell-by" date: https://www.crikey.com.au/spinning-the-media/ https://www.crikey.com.au/spinning-the-media/ I would not get a subscription to view that story (it is probably the only one that is relevant to me, in the US), as I'll bet I would get the sub, and the story would still be dead. Which makes me very sad. I believe in supporting these types of orgs, but they need to deliver (Crikey is not cheap - https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/ https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/ ).
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoCrikey is a small news company based in, and only really concerned with, Australia. Yeah, it definitely wouldn't be a worthwhile subscription for anyone not specifically interested in Australian news, I probably should have disclaimered that. I logged in with my account and, yes, that story is dead, there's no content. That's disappointing. I'll send them a notification and see if they'll put it up without a paywall since it's relatively old content (but still pertinent). Edit: notification sent.
- justinsaccount 6y agoThis is literally all they do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI
- neonate 6y agoI'd forgotten how good that is.
- sethammons 6y agoThis was the first video that popped into my head after watching the video from TFA. I've seen similar ones in the past for talking points against political candidates and such. One that sticks out was "gravitas", a word parroted by media everywhere during an election cycle some years ago. This is a big part of why I avoid "news" anymore.
- WalterBright 6y ago"optics" entered the news vernacular very recently, now everyone uses it.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoThis one drives me nuts when the Sunday morning bobble heads toss the wrong word around when they want to use "perception".
- catalogia 6y ago'Optics' implies objectivity while 'perception' implies subjectivity. It makes them sound more authoritative.
- SilasX 6y ago>when they want to use "perception". Or "PR". I'd hear "doing that would make for bad optics" where I'd previously "... for bad PR". It irritates me for some reason.
- duxup 6y ago>“I was not aware the package was provided by Amazon.” Armstead said, “We’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Where did it come from exactly? Did a segment just show up on his desk on a USB drive and he thought "oh look a video... we should run this"?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dlgeek 6y agoBusinesswire: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Amazon-Transforms-Operations-Response-COVID-19.-Company-Protecting https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Ama...
- nojito 6y ago>UPDATE: Amazon responded by stating the video and script were published to Business Wire as are many other companies’ in-house produced content for media organizations. Local news doesn't have budgets to do in-depth reporting 24/7 so they use the newswires to get stories to fill time. You can see the wire post here. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Amazon-Transforms-Operations-Response-COVID-19.-Company-Protecting https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200521005268/en/Ama... Title is very misleading.
- gowld 6y ago>> News package elements without narration for local anchor voiceover.
- Someone1234 6y agoTitle isn't misleading at all. "It happens all the time" doesn't make it misleading, or invalid. In fact that makes it far worse. It needs to be declared. It doesn't matter if they're reading from Amazon's packet or the Pentagons, a declaration is appropriate and even vital to help maintain a healthy democracy. What's odd is that if a YouTuber did this the FCC's regulations[0] require they disclose it, but not local TV stations evidently? [0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bcoates 6y agoI think you don't understand the difference between a press release and an advertisement. This is a press release, the FTC link is about endorsements (which are advertising). YouTubers would not be required to disclose this.
- Someone1234 6y agoIt is an advertisement distributed in the form of a press release (or more accurately a media packet with included script and video content). Using the term "press release" like it is some kind of legal shield is non sequitur. It doesn't matter if the ad is a billboard, graphic, sidewalk spinner, or press release it is still an advert designed to promote Amazon, and an undisclosed one at that. If a YouTuber wasn't required to declare it, that would be wrong too.
- hbosch 6y agoYeah... my eyebrows raised the first time I heard about this type of thing. Someone I know was in a news segment shot and produced by some company I had never heard of before (I don't recall the name). They said it would be on the news. The segment was produced, and when I asked where it was going to air, they said "50-60 local news stations around the country" and I was baffled... don't local news stations just produce their own news? No, not all of it. There are companies like Sinclair and Scripps that produce and purchase news segments, and then run them in their own markets, and sometimes these companies will literally BUY news from companies that the news is about! And those companies, sometimes marketing or PR companies, are telling their own stories. It's "white label news". I guess the equivalent is what we call "advertorials" online?
- hbosch 6y agoAnd some links for anyone who wants to see more about these topics... Sinclair Broadcasting owns local stations, most likely at least one near you: http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/ http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/ Scripps I believe is a bit smaller, but also owns a lot of local stations: https://scripps.com/our-brands/local-media/ https://scripps.com/our-brands/local-media/ So if Sinclair and Scripps both run the same newswire story, for instance, that is a country full of people getting it through their local -- often "most trusted" -- news station. A lot of stations get the "final say" on what does and doesn't run, but sometimes they do not. Wikipedia entry for "Video news release": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release Wikipedia entry for "Satellite media tour": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_media_tour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_media_tour And finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy
- zouhair 6y agoA video about Sinclair from Last Week Tonight With John Oliver[0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoYup; don't ever believe any news outlets is independent, they are often owned by a single entity. In the UK for example, most media is owned by News Corp., aka Rupert Murdoch. They have the power to change the narrative and public opinion, and with that, sway elections in their favor. I feel like politics nowadays is not so much a fight between politicians, but between corporations with conflicting interests and the handful of people at the top behind them, and the parties paying them (including foreign powers).
- JackFr 6y agoSo it turns out local news isn’t actually public service, but really just the cheapest crap they can produce to run between ads for local car dealers. Go figure.
- bosswipe 6y agoDidn't used to be this way, the FCC used to be much more serious about treating public airways as the public resource that they are.
- thephyber 6y agoYes. Some background[1] on the change. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/revisiting-the-broadcast-public-interest-standard-in-communications-law-and-regulation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/revisiting-the-broadcast-...
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoIt used to be "broadcast" was really broadcast over limited public airwaves. Now it's all IPTV and streams and there is no practical limit on the amount of content that can be distributed, which was always the justification for regulating it. The real problem now is nobody wants to pay for anything when the competition is free. "You're not the customer, you're the product" doesn't only apply to Google.
- ac29 6y ago100% percent of the stations listed in the article have broadcast over the air stations (their FCC callsigns are given). I couldn't speculate how many people consume these station's content via broadcast versus some other medium, though. I wouldn't be too surprised if it was more than a few years ago, but definitely significantly less than 20+ years ago. As as aside, as someone who works in the regulated radio industry, I actually wish there was more enforcement of FCC rules. As is, they are mainly a regulatory body, not an enforcement one - its extremely unlikely you will receive the FCC's attention for operating without a license or breaking other rules. But, please dont do these things, its easy and inexpensive to get amateur/personal/business licenses and you risk interfering with public safety or other critical users of the radio spectrum. Here's a list of enforcement actions for rule violations and unlicensed operation: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/
- throwawaysea 6y agoI've heard before that this is common practice, both for written articles and segments. It does seem like an unhealthy relationship to have journalists in a position where they have to either run with what they're given or risk being excluded by private organizations in future press interactions. But that is a bigger societal problem we are exposed to, beyond just Amazon.
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoI would think that it bodes well for society for journalists to be excluded by private organisations in future press interactions. It only bodes poorly for the individual journalist that would be receiving special treatment from said private organisations. Enforced exclusion from press interactions by a private organization is its own story worthy of publishing, and likely bad PR.
- Spooky23 6y agoIt’s cooperate or die. The easy sources are mostly gone... mid level political people and normal workers can be hunted down pretty easily with modern tech, and subject to criminal sanction in some cases. A close relative was a well known local public official in the 80s and 90s. In those days, the investigative reporters made more than he did and were relentless. In one case, he caught a guy climbing into the plenum over a ceiling tile to try to hear portions of a meeting in executive session. Now, good reporters aspire to work in PR shops.
- admax88q 6y agoWe'll its also cooperate and die. As increased cooperation undermines any trust in the news organization which contributes to diminished viewer/readership.
- runawaybottle 6y agoSouth Park satirized it best: https://youtu.be/z696bTiP8Ro https://youtu.be/z696bTiP8Ro
- jpeg_hero 6y agoHN discovers the concept of "Press Packet"?
- Spivak 6y agoAnd businesswire, newswires in general, press releases, and lazy reporting! All at once! But really though. It’s one thing to buy air time or use your controlling interest in news stations to run misinformation campaigns. Publishing an article to what is essentially an RSS feed for journalists and them running the story verbatim is on the news station, not the company.
- WalterBright 6y agoThis has been going on forever. Magazine content in particular was often written by PR departments of various companies. Even when it wasn't, the "journalist" writing it knew that if he didn't write what the company wanted, he wouldn't get invited to junkets, press parties, etc. Just yesterday, the NY Times ran a prominent Opinion piece that read to me like a promotion for the author's book. Pretty great marketing.
- JamalW 6y agoWhy do people support the media again?
- zitterbewegung 6y agoPaul Graham talked about this in this essay http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- thundergolfer 6y agoHerman and Chomsky wrote “Manufacturing Consent” in 1988. It’s a comprehensive description of the media propaganda system, of which this Amazon thing is a single example.
- yellowapple 6y ago> In response to a request for comment on why the station ran the package, Wes Armstead, news director of the Bluefield NBC affiliate WVVA, told COURIER, “I was not aware the package was provided by Amazon.” Armstead said, “We’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Mr. Armstead is either blatantly lying or astoundingly incompetent if he's seriously going to claim that he has no knowledge of his station's news sources.
- np_tedious 6y agoWhen in doubt, the package is from Amazon
- anm89 6y agoThe version where he honestly didn't know is a lot scarier.
- datavirtue 6y agoThis is hardly new and in no way unique to Amazon.
- dehrmann 6y agoAs others have said, this is apparently a common practice, but what does it mean for the credibility of The Washington Post? If a Bezos-run has no problems pushing a press release as news, what's to stop a Bezos-owned newspaper from doing the same?
- dusted 6y agoI LOVE myself some dystopian 80s sci-fi.. On my TV! not in my reality!
- M2Ys4U 6y agoI'm so glad that this is illegal in the UK
- LatteLazy 6y agoI'm both concerned and relieved people are noticing this. For over a decade media has repeated government press releases as fact, often word for word. For a long time they've "covered" corporate crap the same way ("thanks for filling the spaces between our adds, we don't care what you say"). People seem to have a real issue with Amazon (for good reason) so now they're starting this BS, maybe it will be questioned?