Comcast Fined For Airing Fake News Without Revealing It Was Fake
from the this-ain't-Jon-Stewart dept
Over the last few years there's been quite a bit of controversial over the practice of biased parties putting together video news releases. They look like typical local news feature segments on a particular topic, but they're actually put together by companies, PR agencies or even government agencies. Cheap or lazy TV stations will often air them as filler, though they rarely explain the origins of the report (and often will play them off as the work of their own news agency). The FCC has been warning stations about the practice of airing these videos without disclosure, but it hasn't had much of an impact. That may be changing. The FCC has now fined Comcast $4,000 for airing one such VNR, about some kind of sleeping pill without disclosing that the "news" report was produced by the company that made the sleeping pill. While it's nice that someone is cracking down on this deceptive practice, there are questions over jurisdiction. The FCC has jurisdiction over broadcast TV, but not necessarily cable TV. If anything, this seems like the sort of thing that the FTC should be looking into, rather than the FCC. Either way, the point should be clear: TV stations that are airing these videos may start to be a bit more careful (and a bit more open) about using them.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Only in America...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Only in America...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Besides
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One more reason to trust the news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This clearly falls under the first amendment; news reporting has never been 100% correct, factual, and unbiased and to say it must be is an infringement on speech and press.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re #12
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Saying F*%K Costs How Much???
What the hell is wrong with this picture???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Question:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bank of America is the devil...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People don't believe the news media much now as it is. This should serve to only intensify that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
These high profile releases saw a large amount of exposure because they tend to draw in key marketing demographics. For companies who have products that are not as sexy, a pre-packaged news release is simply a clever expedient to increase the chance a station airs their release. It is simple: video is sexier than copy, and an extra 30 second package can mean the talking heads dont have to chatter inanely or shuffle papers uncomfortably until the camera shuts off.
As for the legal issues involved:
1.Showing the video without attribution to the creator. Not an issue if the creator waives all rights to recognition.
2.Truth in advertising. Not an issue unless the claims made in the video are improper. Stations are liable only to providing due diligence to investigate the claims.
3. Payola: Not an issue unless the stations are receiving compensation in exchange for airing the video.
If none of the above are being violated, it is a news story. It may not be a good story, or even interesting, but it IS news. If you know more after watching than before, it is news. Whether you care is totally irrelevant.
I would also like to add that the size of the fine is pretty telling. If the FCC felt this issue was strongly within their sphere of control, the fine would be significantly higher. As it is, the cost to defend will dwarf the fine so most stations will pay it rather than fight. The FCC is counting on creating a precedent of acceptance to prove out their "power" in this area. In the end, it is an empty threat as the FCC is a passive organization that relies on watchdogs and special reports to identify potential violations.
Personally, I expect this will go away as the advertising lobbies will quietly place pressure in appropriate areas. The act is not a crime, however the reaction is a sin. The FCC broke the only commandment of the 21st century: Thou shalt not infringe upon a corporations power to make money.
In the future, keep in mind the following points:
1. News programs are commercial endeavors. If they do not make a profit, they go away.
2. The age of Tivo guarantees that commercial messages will creep back in to content (a la American Idol, or the classic "soap opera"). It is the nature of the medium.
3. News stories do not have a stranglehold on the truth. Feel free to watch, but take it all with a grain of salt: They are trying to sell you something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If a political cartoon says "Scientific studies show our president is a monkey" do they have to disclaim it with "There are no conclusive studies as to whether our president is a monkey." Which part are they lying about? If the claim is a lie, how do we know the disclaimer is truth?
Do you have any rhyme or reason, logical, legal, or otherwise that makes you think the first amendment doesn't cover lying on TV?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Can't we just admit that some people in this world are idiots?
"A sucker is born every minute."
"Don't believe everything you hear."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]