Faux, maybe; novel, no: the Bush administration is catching hell for its 'video news releases'.

At President Bush's March 16 news conference, a reporter noted that the White House has banned paying journalists to promote the Bush agenda--a reference to the Armstrong Williams scandal--but then asked, "Your administration continues to make use of video news releases, which are prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government.... Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money?"

Bush answered by citing a Justice Department opinion that says producing video news releases, or VNRs, is legal, "so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy." He said he expected departments to follow that ruling, adding that it would be a good thing if local television stations that used such stories would tell viewers the source of the material.

That the issue of VNRs came up in a news conference dominated by the war in Iraq, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and the Social Security battle is a measure of just how strained relations have become between the administration and some members of the press corps. Although it appears to be a minor contretemps, the issue of VNRs has actually become something of a cause among the president's critics.

"The White House isn't backing off its plan to replace real news with faux news," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote on March 17. (Some of the president's adversaries have adopted the phrase "faux news"--they like it not only because of its obvious meaning but also because of its slightly less obvious play on Fox News.) "Faux news is good news--to Bush," declared Salon's Eric Boehlert. "You can be sure that the administration's faux news will always be good news," chimed the Times's Frank Rich.

The controversy began in March 2004, when the Times published a front-page story headlined "U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny." The article reported that "federal investigators"--the Government Accountability Office--were "scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists." The purpose of the video reports was to praise the new Medicare prescription-drug law, and they featured footage of President Bush "receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering" when he signed the law.

Furthermore, the Times reported, the segments were narrated by a woman posing as a reporter who concluded the story by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan, reporting." In fact, the Times said, Ryan worked for a TV production company that had "hired her to read a script prepared by the government."

Although a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services explained to the paper that the use of VNRs was a "common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Democrats expressed shock and anger at the news. New Jersey Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg, for example, pronounced the practice "disturbing" and "a covert attempt to manipulate the press."

Many commentators agreed, their opinions perhaps best summarized by a Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial headlined, "Karen Ryan, you're a phony." Democrats demanded more investigation by the GAO, which ultimately concluded that the stories violated the law against government-funded propaganda. The problem with the reports, the GAO found, was that there was no disclaimer within the actual stories--even though, when the videos were sent to television outlets, there was a disclaimer immediately before and immediately after them indicating that they had been produced by the Department of Health and Human Services.

From there, the criticism mounted, resuiting in the question at the president's recent news conference. But one aspect of the issue that has received little attention is the fact that VNRs have been used by the government for decades, and that the most enthusiastic and sophisticated purveyor of VNRs prior to the current controversy was the Clinton administration, which produced releases that were identical in style to those produced by the Bush administration. On examining VNRs from both administrations, it appears there are only two differences. One, the Clinton VNRs were produced in a more openly politicized way. And two, when the Clinton administration distributed its reports, no one appeared to notice or be upset.

One very brief portion of the GAO's report noted that the Department of Health and Human Services had provided investigators with copies of Medicare VNRs produced by the department in 1999--during the Clinton years. Like the Bush VNRs, those videos carried a disclaimer before and after the report, but none inside the body of the piece. The stories were narrated by a woman who signed off with "Lovell Brigham, reporting."

As it turns out, Lovell Brigham was not a reporter. She was, in fact, a Clinton appointee who worked in the public-relations department of HHS. In addition, the 1999 VNRs were produced in the midst of a fight between the Clinton administration and Congress over the issue of prescription drugs, whereas the Bush Medicare VNRs were produced after Congress passed the drug law and the president signed it.

But back then--and even now, when the news came out in the GAO report--there were no articles in the Times, no editorials that proclaimed, "Lovell Brigham, you're a phony." And there was no GAO investigation. Unlike today's Democrats, in the 1990s Republicans did not complain about the Clinton administration's practices; if they had, the VNRs would likely have been labeled propaganda. "These [stories] were not brought to our attention at that time," the GAO wrote in a footnote to its report. "Had we been aware of [them] ... the principles discussed here would have been applicable."

So far, there hasn't been much discussion of the Clinton administration's use of the technique. Recently, the Times published an extensive investigation into the Bush administration's use of VNRs. One sentence (out of a 5,600-word story) said "the practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts." That "which also occurred in the Clinton administration" was the article's only reference to the Clinton years.

But Larry Moskowitz remembers them quite well. Moskowitz, a former United Press International reporter, runs Medialink, a company that produces a large number of VNRs for both government and private-sector clients. During the 1990s, Moskowitz says, the Clinton administration joined with makers of VNRs to produce an enormous number of stories that might now be referred to as "faux news." "These guys were the most active in the business," Moskowitz says, although it should be said that Moskowitz saw nothing wrong with that then, just as he sees nothing wrong with it now.

His argument is that VNRs are never broadcast directly to viewers. Instead, they are sent to television-news organizations, which are free to use some portion of them, or all of them, or to throw them away. "Our view is as long as it is fully disclosed to the journalists that this is supplied by whoever is paying for it, and that that's clear and evident ... then we believe our job is done," Moskowitz says. It's up to the broadcaster to tell viewers what they're seeing. Moskowitz also contends that, as far as VNRs are concerned, "there's no different notion or concept from the written press release. All it does is provide the video equivalent of the quote that you would get in a press release."

He has a point. To illustrate that with a completely random example, on March 17, the Treasury Department issued a press release, datelined Washington, D.C., that began, "New Department of the Treasury estimates released today show that over 105 million Americans will have a lighter tax bill thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003." The release quoted Treasury secretary John Snow as saying, "Tax relief has resulted in a growing economy that is producing jobs and creating a better standard of living for Americans."

There was a line above the story's headline that read FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, but nowhere in the body of the story was there any information about the source of the information. A newspaper might have published the story, or used the quote from Snow, without disclosing where it had come from. Did that make the government guilty of dispensing propaganda? A better way of saying it would be that the government relies on journalists, print and TV, to disclose the sources of their information.

Of course, a perfectly reasonable argument could be made that there is no good reason for the government to spend tax-payer money on video news releases--or news releases in general. But there is no argument to be made that the Bush administration has somehow invented a new form of disinformation, or even that it is using VNRs any differently from its predecessor. The only difference seems to be that, unlike the Clinton administration, the Bush team is catching hell for it.