Don't Believe This Article

Writers are often working under deadline and from a content or keyword angle because we want our article to be search friendly to bring readers to the buyer. We're also often looking at the bottom line. I could spend all day researching this article and refining the points, but how long will it take to find a buyer that will compensate enough for that time? Too long for me at the moment, so this wont be as thoroughly researched as I would like. Please factcheck me wherever you like. Wikipedia is a good place for that, right?

Just like the nightly news, if articles don't "bleed", aren't sensational or controversial, don't follow popular topics, or otherwise wont get enough viewers, the buyer (and therefore the author) wont get the desired revenue. The exception to this is how-to articles, although those may also have to be in time with popular trends. That leaves media producers crunched for profitable material, and PR firms eager to help us out.

Marketers often offer incentives to writers for mentioning or reviewing their product. "Paid to blog" offerings are nothing new to anyone who's freelanced or blogged lately. It's one way to offset the cost of writing about what you love. A similar tactic is to use a site like Ezine Articles to write about a topic relating to your own referral program, ebook or service. The link is conveniently placed in your bio or somewhere in the text and that article can be picked up by thousands of newsletters looking for free content, giving you free advertising. A newsletter producer can sell advertising space in his newsletter without ever paying a dime for the content people are subscribing to read.

There are entire sites (Review Stream is one) that pay for reviews of products, because those reviews generate traffic and revenue. Are the reviewers always being honest and thorough? At the low payout per item offered, probably not. Forums, the places we most often go to ask for unbiased opinions and a type of media themselve, aren't safe from this either. A flunky can just as easily steer discussions or create buzz for products as you or I, and those kinds of positions already exist. Keep a skeptical eye on YouTube as well.

Even recipe and how-to sites have sponsors that like to see their products mentioned when there might be better, cheaper, or healthier alternatives. One meal planning site, MealsMatter.org, is funded by the Dairy Council of California. Although it is a non-commerical site and the Dairy Council is a non-profit - funded by dairy companies - is it any surprise that they list ice cream as a pantry "staple"? Magazines will also have "special advertising sections" with filler is provided by the advertiser that's helpful on it's face, but always referencing or featuring their own products. We accept these kinds of content and expect them. It indirectly helps other kinds of information to be free or low cost.

So when we hear about a video news release, a news segment produced by a publicist for their client, being aired by the local news station, should we think twice about them? Probably not, as long as we know the bias behind the report. The problem is many news stations play these VNRs without acknowledging the source. The most worrisome VNRs are of the medical type, where impartial opinion is vital to making good decisions about your health. Some VNRs are redubbed with an anchor's own voiceover. Other's are played uncut with the original publicist's voiceover - except for the text disclaimer at the end citing the source. The heart of this issue is the ethics of not disclosing the news source, not fact checking, and presenting biased information.

We are viewed as consumers, first and foremost, by corporations, advertising agencies, and public relations companies. And for the most part we accept that. Remember the Sears tagline, "A Great Life at a Great Price"? We are part of a consumer culture and whether knowingly or unknowingly we buy into it all. Every time we admire or splurge on SUVs and big screen TV's, knowing the effects of bad mileage and waste (how often does someone not have a TV at all when they're purchasing a new model?) we're saying consuming and materials are more important. Every time we make a family dinner out of fast food we're saying our health can slide for the sake of something comforting and cheap. So can we blame these companies for caring more about where we spend our money than our health?

The one group that we would hope has more concern for our well-being than for it's own agenda is the U.S. government. Yet VRN's have been used quite often by government agency - often enough for the Senate to initiate a bill called the "Stop Government Propaganda Act" in February 2005. Even the Senate recognizes these undisclosed news releases as propaganda, and has censured (some) of the instances of it being used by government agencies. That bill was introduced to the Senate then referred to committee, where it is still languishing.

One incident that prompted this bill was the 2004 decision by the GAO (General Accounting Office, the investigative department of the government) that the Department of Health and Human Services broke the law when it paid for a VNR touting the new Medicare plan, complete a paid actor posing as a journalist. A year later the GAO ruled on another incident involving a segment on the No Child Left Behind program, paid for by the Department of Education and coincidentally featuring the same "reporter".

These aren't isolated incidents nor are they likely to stop completely. In 2005 the New York Times found that over a four year period hundreds of such VNR's were produced by at least 20 agencies, including the Department of Defense, and were aired without any acknowledgement of the agency's involvement. Again, the key here is that the broadcaster did not disclose the source, and at no time during the segment is that disclosed by the producers. Studies are being funded by grassroots groups that are propped up by corporations. Medical doctors are running studies on drugs produced by companies they consult or chair for. And White House agencies have censured which government paid scientists we have access to on the news. It is in their scope to deny interviews, mostly because of concern over national security. However, at least one interview was declined based on the opinion they wanted us to hear (or not)

Studies are being funded by grassroots groups that are propped up by corporations. Medical doctors are running studies on drugs produced by companies they consult or chair for. I'd go more in depth about those but I'm running out of time (see?), so please explore them further. I can go a little in depth on this - White House agencies have censured which government paid scientists we have access to on the news. It is in their scope to deny interviews, so perhaps censure is an inflammatory word, mostly that power is mostly because of concern over national security. However, at least one interview was declined based on the opinion they wanted us to hear (or not). Many others have been declined without any explanation, and we only know about this one because of departmental email.

A link to the emails between officials discussing a request to interview a scientist after Hurricane Katrina is included below. This scientist held the opinion that global warming would contribute to stronger hurricanes, and his interview was denied while another scientist, with different stated views, was approved. The language in the emails make it clear that the preferred not to allow the interview based on his views.

Why should you believe the facts I'm reporting? You shouldn't out of hand. I could be pimping the websites I'm referencing (I'm not. I have no association with them) or presenting things out of context. The point is you should be thinking critically about everything you read/hear/view and consider the angle or bias of the author. Don't take any information at face value. Advertising and public relations firms can and do infiltrate every form of communication we have, and Uncle Sam has learned a few lessons about that, too.