Ap

CU

a

ARRA

KAAVE

1

scDu

tpbioczd

T

0d

Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

ctivist efforts of the Center for Media and Democracy to affect FCColicy for video news releases

andace White ∗

niversity of Tennessee, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 1 September 2011eceived in revised form 17 October 2011ccepted 3 December 2011

eywords:ctivismctivists organizationsNRthics of video news releases

a b s t r a c t

The study reviews FCC policy about identifying the source of video news releases (VNRs) andlooks at the activist efforts of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) to affect policy.The FCC rules about VNR use are clear: stations are not obligated to identify the source offootage taken from video news releases if there are no sponsorship issues (payment forplacement) unless VNRs concern political or controversial issues. The basic argument iswhether source identification of VNR material should be self-regulated by journalists orregulated by the government as advocated by the CMD. The study looks at efforts of theCenter for Media and Democracy (CMD) to affect the practice of public relations throughpressure to regulate video news releases by examining discourse and calls for action on theCMD Web site, responses by other organizations including the Radio and Television NewsDirectors Association (RTNDA), and resulting FCC actions in order to examine the role ofactivism in the VNR debate. It found CMD efforts influenced the debate by serving an issuesactivation and agenda-setting function that resulted in news coverage and triggered an FCCinvestigation of VNR use, but was not successful in the attempt to change policy.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Despite the mutual benefits of video news releases (VNRs) to both the organizations that produce them and the televisiontations that air them, and despite the clarity of the policies of the FCC and professional associations, VNRs remain at theenter of controversy. In recent years, the controversy has been fueled by the activist group, the Center for Media andemocracy (CDM), which considers all video news releases to be “fake news” and calls for increased FCC regulation of theirse.

CDM is a nonprofit special interest group that examines, according to its Web site, “how PR experts concoct and spinhe news, organize front groups, manipulate public opinion and manage public policy for powerful special interests.” Iturportedly strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, andy promoting media literacy and citizen journalism (www.prwatch.org). The Center for Media and Democracy was founded

n 1993 by John Stauber, author of Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry. One of its

bjectives is “countering propaganda by investigating and reporting on behind-the-scenes public relations campaigns byorporations, industries, governments and other powerful institutions” (www.prwatch.org). The CMD is an activist organi-ation whose special issue is the public relations industry and its practices. For more than a decade, it has been critical of theistribution and use of video news releases; it considers all VNRs to be fake news designed to dupe television journalists and

∗ Correspondence address: School of Advertising and Public Relations, 476 Communications Building, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.el.: +1 865 974 5112; fax: +1 865 974 2826.

E-mail address: white@utk.edu

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.001

C. White / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82 77

viewers, and believes that use of VNRs without source identification constitutes plagiarism (Stauber quoted in Chepesiuk,2006). It advocates for full source disclosure, which includes on-screen labeling whenever material from VNRs is used.

Below is an overview of public relations literature about activists and activism, followed by a discussion of the legal andethical concerns of video news release that serve as context for the case study examination of the activist efforts of theCDM. Rather than viewing activism as negative or dangerous, or viewing activism from the perspective of the organizationor industry being acted on (the FCC as an organization or public relations as an industry), the current study attempts toobjectively understand the influence of activism, which is important for relevant theory building.

2. Activism and public relations

There is a discernable difference between activism, activists, and activist organizations. Activism is the process by whichgroups exert pressure to change policies, practices, or conditions that they find problematic (Smith, 2005). Activists canbe a loose association of like-minded individuals or formal organizations whose mission is to address public issues or tooppose something in their environment (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000). While any organization may at one time or another takean activist stand and engage in activism about an issue, Derville (2005) differentiates between activism and radical activistorganizations. The sole mission of activist organizations is to influence the public and political sphere regarding a particularissue, which is different from public and private organizations whose engagement in activist activities is situational oroccasional.

Earlier studies in the public relations literature look at activists from the point of view of the organization being “acted”on in order to discover how organizations “respond” to activism. In this sense, activists are viewed as a public external tothe organization of interest and are often seen as problematic to the organization (Grunig, 1992). The dominant paradigmexpressed in excellence theory puts the corporation at the center of the examination and the activist groups at the margin,while more recent critical studies recognize activist organizations as both publics and as organizations that have their ownpublics and are themselves practitioners of public relations. Dozier and Lauzen (2000) note the corporate-centric view canlead to intellectual myopia in the study of public relations.

Recent studies that look at activists as the unit of analysis have done so from the perspectives of resource mobilization(McCluskey, 2009), framing (Reber & Berger, 2005; Zoch, Collins, Sisco, & Supa, 2008), and the use of media relations, buthave found no real differences in activists’ use of public relations tactics compared to public relations practices of traditionalorganizations. Activist organizations, like most other types of organizations, practice public relations to influence publicopinion and to implement efforts to achieve their goals, and often execute media strategies that prompt journalists andhave an agenda-setting effect (McCluskey, 2009; Reber & Kim, 2006). News coverage is a political asset for activist groups.McCluskey (2009) found that environmental groups can have a media agenda-building effect, and not surprisingly, groupswith resources to provide more information subsidies received more positive coverage. Publicity gives activist groups fuelto influence public opinion and potentially change public policy. Therefore, activists often to make an issue out of thecondition they find problematic by drawing attention to it through publicity. Previous studies confirm that activist groupsare themselves organizations that practice public relations, but the theoretical aspects of the findings are not activists-specific. The studies indicate that activist groups use media strategies in much the same way that all organizations use them,which does not expand theory about activists and activism.

Werder and Schuch (2008) used a communication-centric, rather than organization-centric approach to look at the effectsof message strategy used for activist purposes. In their experiment, communication strategies served a problem recognitionfunction. Studies that identify the effects of activism warrant further study and lead to theory building.

3. Legal and ethical concerns about video news releases: fuel for activism

Video news releases are an important public relations tactic for private, nonprofit and governmental organizations. Thewidespread use of VNR material is an effect of free markets. Television stations are increasingly owned by media conglom-erates that, like all corporations, are expected to make a profit. News room budgets are shrinking and news holes are large;most stations are increasing their hours of local news coverage while decreasing the number of reporters. Consequently,local news could not exist without third-party material (RTNDA, 2006). VNRs, which are electronic versions of written pressreleases, are third-party source materials that provide television journalists with story ideas, expert testimony, images, andbackground information at no cost to the stations. They often contain video footage that could not otherwise be obtained(Harmon & White, 2001). VNRs are used if and when they are deemed credible and newsworthy by television news direc-tors. There is no expressed or implied agreement regarding their use, no payment for use is expected from either party, andbroadcast journalists are under no obligation to use them. Journalists use VNRs for the same reason they use press releases– they contain news that may be of interest to their viewers (Stoker, 2005).

VNRs often are packaged with extra video, sound bites, split audio and mixed versions (B-roll), and scripts to facilitateediting. Few stations use VNRs in their entirety as produced by the client, but rather select segments from the video feed.

When VNRS are used, they are heavily edited with most of the footage used coming from the B-roll (Harmon & White, 2001).

Despite their utility, the controversy surrounding the use of VNRs has not subsided since TV Guide published its notoriousarticle, “Fake News,” on February 22, 1992 that called for continuous on-air graphics to label the VNR as such. The articlecontended viewers are led to believe that stories from VNR materials originated with the journalists presenting them, and

7

tu“pvC

3

ipttsVo

3

VbfiRABpwgd

paVwhaWt

3

pma‘tsufoa

3

ianp

8 C. White / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82

herefore are fake news, even though they may contain factual and newsworthy information. The fake news cry was takenp by the Center for Media and Democracy (publishers of PR Watch), a special interest group that according to its Web site,examines how PR experts concoct and spin the news, organize front groups, manipulate public opinion and manage publicolicy for powerful special interests.” The CMD describes video news releases as “pre-packaged news,” and contends thaterbatim use of information from VNRs without identifying the source is plagiarism (John Stauber, executive director ofMD, quoted in Chepesiuk, 2006).

.1. Legal issues

Recent controversy about VNRs has stemmed from disagreement and misunderstanding of FCC rules. The two key legalssues in the VNR debate are the definition of sponsored content and the greater obligation of disclosure in connection witholitical or controversial program matter. Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934 (FCC, CFR 73.1212 d) requires iden-ification for “political broadcast matter or discussion of a controversial issue of public importance for which any film, record,alent, script is furnished. . .” as well as for “advertising commercial products or service, when it is clear that the mention con-titutes a sponsorship identification. . .” In April 2005, the FCC required television stations to label all government-producedNRs during broadcasting; however, it was not clear on what constitutes “public matter.” The rules require different formsf identification depending on the length of the broadcast (Aiello & Proffitt, 2008).

.1.1. Political and controversial contentCloser examination of government-produced VNRs was spurred by the “Karen Ryan offense,” which was the release of

NRs from the U.S. government. In 2003, television viewers in an estimated 22 million households watched what appeared toe a news report, narrated by what appeared to be a reporter named Karen Ryan who explained changes to Medicare resultingrom the Medicare Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. Ryan was not a journalist, but owned a public relations firmn Washington, D.C. that produced the VNR on behalf of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (Chepesiuk, 2006).yan was paid to produce about a dozen reports for seven federal agencies between 2003 and 2004 (Barstow & Stein, 2005).ccording to The New York Times, at least 20 federal agencies including the Defense Department, State Department, Censusureau, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture had distributed hundreds of pre-ackaged news segments for the Bush administration. The segments appeared to be news coverage by reporters, and mostere broadcast on local stations throughout the country without acknowledgement that they were produced by the U.S.

overnment (Barstow & Stein, 2005). They were designed to fit seamlessly into local news broadcasts and the “reporters”id not state they were paid by the government.

Government-produced VNRs, if aired without disclosure, violate not only the FCC rules, but also the law against covertropaganda by the Government Accountability Office. The Karen Ryan offense and let to a ruling by the Government Account-bility Office (GAO) that the Bush administration had also broken propaganda regulations by producing pro-administrationNRs by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies thatere staged to appear to be news segments (Aiello & Proffitt, 2008; Peabody, 2007). In three separate opinions, the GAOeld that government-produced news segments may constitute improper “covert propaganda.” The GAO said governmentgencies could not produce the segments unless they clearly identified the source for the stations and viewing audiences.hile the VNRs were labeled by the government as such for television stations, the stations, for the most part, did not pass

his information on to viewers (Barstow & Stein, 2005).

.1.2. SponsorshipThe issue of sponsorship has been at the center of the CMD arguments and formal complaints. Sponsorship is defined as

ayment for placement. The FCC rules state that sponsorship identification is required “when a broadcast station transmitsaterials for which money, service or other valuable consideration is paid, promised or accepted. . .” (FCC, 47 CFR 73.1212

). They go on to say, “for the purposes of this section, the term ‘sponsored’ shall be deemed to have the same meaning aspaid for”’ (FCC, 47 CFR 73.1212 i). The FCC rules about corporate VNR use are very clear: stations are not obligated to identifyhe source of the video material when there are no sponsorship issues (payment for placement). Corporate VNRs are notponsored content as defined in the FCC rules. Like print news releases, VNRs are distributed free and without obligation forse. Televisions stations pay nothing to use them, nor are they paid anything if they use them. Since no payment is exchangedor the use of VNRs produced by corporate and nonprofit clients, there is no legal requirement for labeling unless the topicf the VNR could be considered political or controversial, regardless of how “commercial” the resulting news segment mayppear.

.2. Ethical issues

Video news releases are not inherently unethical: they are produced by organizations and the organizations are clearly

dentified in the feed that is sent to television stations. Television news directors know the feed is VNR material and theyre not “duped” as the CMD suggests. VNRs are used if and when they are deemed credible and newsworthy by televisionews directors. There is no expressed or implied agreement regarding their use, no payment for use is expected from eitherarty, and broadcast journalists are under no obligation to use them. PRSA, Radio and Television News Directors Association

C. White / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82 79

(RTNDA), and the National Association of Broadcast Communicators (NABC), which is an association of VNR producers, allhave written ethical guidelines that call for information in VNRs to be accurate and reliable and clearly identified. RTNDA’svoluntary code tells members to identify the source of VNRs and other third-party material.

As noted above, the FCC does not require source disclosure for most uses of VNR material, nonetheless there is con-troversy regarding the issues of transparency and disclosure. Transparency as an ethical construct includes not only whatis said, but how it is said. It includes values such as accountability, credibility, trust, respect, honesty, and duty (Aiello &Proffitt, 2008). The question from this point of view is not whether VNRs contain accurate and newsworthy information, butwhether journalists have an ethical obligation to viewers who “trust” television news and have a right to know the sourceof information. This argument includes concerns that it is deceptive on the part of journalists to present information fromVNRs as original, as well as concerns that information provided by a public relations firm on behalf of clients and presentedas news is deceptive. At issue is not only the content of the VNR, but also the method by which the information is conveyedand whether or not viewers are intentionally deceived, either by VNR producers or by journalists (Aiello & Proffitt, 2007).The concept of trust, both between television journalists and television audiences and between publics and organizations,is at stake.

Also of concern is whether or not source disclosure affects viewers. There seems to be an assumption in the ethical debatethat television viewers are harmed in some way when VNR material is used without disclosing the source (Calvert, 2008).The question from this perspective is whether not disclosing the source affects the audience’s ability to reason or to judgethe credibility of the story. There are mixed findings about how labeling affects credibility. Connolly-Ahern, Grantham, andCabrera-Baukus (2010) found that news stories from government VNRs that carried attribution were deemed more crediblethan those without attribution. On the other hand, Wood, Nelson, Atkinson, and Lane (2008) found that in some caseslabeling decreases the credibility of the news segments from VNRs, especially among viewers who have knowledge aboutVNRs practices.

Wyatt (2005) argues the important issue is not where news originates, but how it contributes to the public discourse. Forexample, recent VNRs distributed by Medialink Worldwide, Inc. included a product recall produced by a toy manufacturer incooperation with the Consumer Products Safety Commission, information about the dangers of texting and driving producedby an insurance company, and information about a new children’s fitness program at Boys & Girls Clubs. The news values,accuracy, and contribution to public discourse of the segments would not be changed by the origination point. While viewersexpect journalists to confirm the accuracy of the information, it is doubtful that viewers today, who are accustomed toseeing new stories containing video shot with personal video cameras by bystanders, believe or care that all news is entirelyindependently produced.

4. Influence of activism in the VNR debate

Primary documents used to develop this case study included rules regarding sponsorship identification (FCC 73.1212)and Notices of Inquiry and Notices of Proposed Rule Making (FCC 05-84; 08-155) accessed from the FCC Web site,and the full text of the CDM study (Farsetta & Price, 2006). Additionally, all press releases from the Web sites of theFCC, CMD, RTNDA, NABA, Free Press, and PRSA that addressed the issue were examined. Finally, news articles from aFactiva search that appeared in Quill, Broadcasting & Cable, and The New York Times provided points of view for thestudy.

4.1. Stop fake news

In 2005, the Center for Media and Democracy launched “Stop Fake News,” a letter-writing campaign on its Web site. Thecampaign was conducted jointly with Free Press, “a national, nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase informed publicparticipation in media policy and to promote a more competitive and democratic media system” (www.freepress.net). Thecampaign urged people to, “Take action to stop fake news today – Demand that the Federal Communications Commissioninvestigate, strengthen disclosure requirements and punish station owners that air fake news” (www.prwatch.org). Bothorganizations encouraged readers of their Web sites to complain that “corporate propaganda continues to infiltrate local TVnewscasts with disguised product advertisements posing as genuine news reports. . .that represents a breach of the trustbetween broadcasters and their viewers.” Both sites provided an easy-to-use dialog box where readers could edit or sendthe above statement verbatim to the FCC.

The campaign resulted in 40,000 “letters” to the FCC that prompted the FCC to issue a Reminder and Public NoticeSeeking Comment (FCC 05-84) in April 2005 on the issue to disclose all entities involving VNRs. The FCC public noticebegan by stating that the Commission has recently received a large number of requests that it consider whether use ofVNRs by broadcast licensees, cable operators, and other complies with the Commission’s sponsorship identification rules.It went on to say “the rules are grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks topersuade them. . .” (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-05-84A1.pdf). The public notice reiterated the

rules concerning sponsorship and political matter, but did not in any way interpret the rules differently or add anything new(Calvert, 2008).

On April 6, 2006, the Center for Media and Democracy released a study, Fake TV News, Widespread and Undisclosed, byDiane Farsetta and Daniel Price that identified television stations across the country that had aired VNRs without disclosure.

8

Ittwot

ciJna

4

noorspCoattbFnfoo

fntwtr(i

ubd

4

csoirft

atR

0 C. White / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82

n November 2006 a second report, Still Not the News: Stations Overwhelmingly Fail to Disclose VNRs, was released. Togetherhe reports identified 111 television stations that had aired 140 news segments from video news releases without disclosureo viewers. The reports alleged that “the stations had violated FCC Rules that states sponsorship identification is requiredhen a broadcast station transmits materials for which money, service or other valuable consideration is paid, promised

r accepted. . .” (FCC, 47 CFR 73.1212). The CMD’s interpretation of the rules was that all VNRs must be identified all of theime, which is not stated in the FCC rules.

At the same time the first report was issued in April 2006, the Center for Media and Democracy and Free Press filedoncurrent but separate complaints with the FCC. Subsequently, the FCC Enforcement Bureau launched an investigation andssued 42 Letters of Inquiry to the 77 broadcasters named in the first CMD report. In a November 14, 2006 press release,onathan S. Adelstein, FCC chairman at the time, commended the CMD report and the Center for Media and Democracy byame, and said, “newsrooms are not allowed under the law to run commercials disguised as news without an honest anddequate disclosure” (FCC Web site, hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs), which according to the FCC rules is not required.

.2. Reaction of other organizations

The CMD study prompted other interest groups to respond and become involved in the debate. In reaction to the FCCotice, a new organization, the National Association of Broadcast Communicators (NABC) was formed by 14 producersf video news releases specifically to respond to the FCC. The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), anrganization serving the electronic new profession whose purpose is to set standards for broadcast newsgathering andeporting, issued a critique of the Fake TV News through its lawyers, Wiley Rein & Fielding. RTNDA also responded througheveral press releases. The RTNDA response noted that the undisclosed corporate VNRs cited in the CDM report were notrohibited by FCC sponsorship rules. RTNDA called Fake TV News “a biased and inaccurate study” and noted that while theMD report stated that “the only interests served are those of the broadcast PR firms clients” (Farsetta & Price, p. 11), onef the VNRS called into question by the CMD was actually a case where “the station simply used of some of the footages background for a short report criticizing the product the VNR as designed to promote” (italics in the original). It notedhat a reasonable reading of the FCC’s rules suggests that the sponsorship identification rules do not apply if stations orheir employees have not received consideration (defined in the FCC rules as payment) for including VNR material in aroadcast, unless the material concerned politics or a controversial issue of public importance. RTNDA contended that anCC investigation was an unprecedented intrusion into newsrooms that would have chilling effect on the dissemination ofewsworthy information to the public (RTNDA, 2006). Additionally, NABC and PRSA responded to the report, noting that

orced disclosure outside of FCC regulation was a violation of the First Amendment and constituted “unprecedented intrusionf the government into the newsroom.” Like RTNDA, they advocated self-regulation as currently articulated in all of theirrganizations’ codes of ethics (NABC, 2006).

Despite rebuttals, the FCC investigation continued. In October 2007, the FCC censured Comcast for showing segmentsrom a VNR without disclosure on an affiliate station because the segment contained “too much focus on a product or brandame in the programming,” even though no payment was received for naming the brand. Comcast was fined despite the facthat the FCC acknowledged there was no sponsorship involved (nor was there a political or controversial issue – the VNRas about a sleep aid). After further FCC investigations, Comcast was levied a total of $20,000 in fines. Comcast contested

he fines, noting that no sponsorship identification was required since there was no consideration (payment) promised oreceived (Calvert, 2008; Eggerton, 2007). RTNDA weighed in, noting this was not how FCC rules had been applied previouslyEggerton, 2007). On October 11, 2007, the CMD filed another formal complaint urging the FCC to expedite action on itsnvestigation of the 110 other stations.

On October 31, 2007, RTNDA responded again in a complaint to the FCC, noting that the identification of all materialsed from a video news release “already has begun to drastically chill speech in newsrooms across the country, inhibitingroadcasters and cablecasters from fully serving their viewers.” They reiterated that VNRs that come into newsrooms viaigital, satellite or other video feeds are not, by definition, sponsored.

.3. Summary

The three central communication strategies employed by the Center for Media and Democracy were the letter-writingampaign to the FCC, the release of the research report, Fake TV News, about alleged violations of FCC rules by televisiontations, and the filing of formal complaints with the FCC. Media strategies, including publicity through press releases andnline newsrooms, were secondary. While press releases were issued at each juncture and had an agenda-setting effectn the trade media in particular, the central communication strategies used a more direct approach that served a problemecognition and issues activation function. The release of the CMD study, which resulted in a media flurry, followed by theormal complaint to the FCC served as the triggering events that resulted in an investigation into the use of VNRs, evenhough it did not result in policy change.

The CMD used emotional arguments that centered on viewers being mislead, duped, and harmed while the federalgency with the power to protect them did not intervene. Media releases and the online newsroom used rhetoric such ashe “epidemic of fake news infiltrating local news” and “disguised corporate propaganda masquerading as genuine news. . .”eports based on emotion contained factual errors and showed that the CMD did not seem to fully understand the FCC rules

C. White / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82 81

about sponsorship and how they had been applied in the past. This in turn elicited response from other organizations thatused a more rational approach. RTNDA and NABC responded with a methodological review of the Fake News study, whichmay have resulted in loss of credibility for CMD. RTNDA released legal-based arguments about the FCC rules through itslaw firm and filed rational public comment responses with the FCC. The effects of the communication strategies used bythe activist organization in this study are congruent with the experimental finding of Werder and Schuch (2008) that helpexplain the communication effects of message strategies, particularly as they influence problem recognition, which is partof agenda setting. In terms of persuasive messages, the rational strategies of the RTNDA trumped the emotional strategiesof CMD, but the initial coercive message strategies of the CMD were effective.

Counter-activism, or issues response as a form of issues management was more effective than the activist strategiesof CMD and Free Press in this case and have stalled any policy changes and further censuring of television stations as of2011. Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Democracy has moved its efforts from the issue of sponsorship (FCC 73.1212section a) to section (d)1 of the FCC rules that addresses political and controversial issues, and also to the issue of payola thatincludes “embedded advertising” in product placement, both of which may have more legal traction. Even though, accordingto its Web site, the CMD continues to monitor the misuse of corporate VNRs, rather than continuing to pursue its originalarguments, it has changed the focus of complaints to a different section of the FCC rules.

5. Advancing theoretical understanding of activism

Research about activist organizations in the public relations literature has moved from viewing activists as a problemto viewing them as an opportunity. However, both views are hegemonic, organization-centric approaches. While activist-centric approaches are helpful and have confirmed that activist organizations use public relations tactics, they do not fullyexplain how activist approaches to communication are theoretically different from approaches used by all organizations.For theory building, the influence of activism, rather than of activists, should be the unit of analysis.

Evidence in the study suggests that activism is a process that serves an agenda-setting and agenda-building functionabout an issue. Hallahan (2001) proposed a model of the dynamics of issues activation and response that is applicable tothe current study. The CMD was successful in getting the issue of VNR identification disclosure on the public agenda (issuesactivation), which in turn brought other organizations into the debate (issues response). The debate itself fueled mediacoverage, which moved from elite media (Quill) to general media (The New York Times) as explained by the oil spot modelof issues management. From an issues management perspective, recognizing activism at its early stage of issue activationshould be an important function of environmental scanning on the part of organizations that might be affected by the issue.Furthermore, counter-activism on the part of organizations that do not define themselves as activist organizations is also aform of issues management.

Understanding the nature of the organizations that use activist strategies is fundamental to understanding the nature ofactivism. In this study, the Center for Media and Democracy and the National Association of Broadcast Communicators wereactivist organizations as defined by Derville (2005) in that the core mission of both was to actively address specific issues.The mission of the CMD is to investigate and expose public relations spin and propaganda and promote media literacy; theNABC was formed specifically to respond the FCC on behalf of producers of VNRs to counter the arguments of CMD. TheRadio and Television News Directors Association and PRSA, on the other hand, are professional associations with missionsto serve professionals in the fields who, in this case, engaged in issue-specific activism. Jiang and Ni (2007) note the dualistnature of the study of activist organizations; they can be public or can have their own publics, depending on the point ofview.

5.1. Future research

For future theory building, the influence of activism, rather than of activists, could be the unit of analysis. Two approachesfor future research would help expand theory. The first is to continue research about activist strategies and the influenceof the process of activism, rather than focus on tactical issues such as communication channels associated with activistorganizations, which are not exceptionally different from public relations tactics used by all organizations. The second is torecognize the situational nature of activism and to make a distinction between activist organizations (such as the CMD) andorganizations engaging in situational activism (RTNDA). Organizations may assume activist roles for their special interestseven when activism is not the central mission of the organization.

6. Final note: resolving the VNR debate

The basic argument in the VNR debate is whether identification of VNR source material should be regulated by thegovernment or self-regulated by journalists. At issue is the First Amendment and government intrusion in independent

1 73.1212 (d) states “In the case of any political broadcast matter or any broadcast matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of publicimportance for which any film, record, transcription, talent, script, or any material or service of any kind is furnished. . .an announcement shall be madeboth the beginning and conclusion of such broadcasts. . ..”

8

rnfBo

Wifpd

lwV

kioctn

R

ABC

CC

DD

EF

FFG

HHJ

LMNP

R

R

R

SSW

W

WZ

2 C. White / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 76– 82

eporting, one of the points in the RTNDA rebuttal to the CMD study. Calvert (2008) contends the FCC is attempting to defineews when it punishes journalists from using VNRs as source materials. While, current FCC rules do not require labeling

or most VNRs, the Public Relations Service Council, The Public Relations Society of America, the National Association ofroadcast Communicators, and the Radio-Television News Directors Association advocate clear identification of the sourcef VNRs. The onus is on journalists to do so.

Source identification is up to the journalists who use VNR material. VNRs from traditional distributors like Medialinkorldwide, Inc. are clearly labeled as such on the satellite feed, and the source (organization that produced the VNR) is

dentified. Like print news releases, they contain verifiable information and contact information is provided in the satelliteeed. Television news directors are not duped as the CMD suggests; they know the source of the feed and the originationoint of the VNR. Since disclosure of source material that does not constitute sponsorship is voluntary, it comes down to theecisions of stations mangers and television news directors.

Part of the problem is there is no agreed-upon criterion for what constitutes VNR use. Many news directors believeabeling is not necessary when only a small, edited portion of a VNR is used in a story. However, broadcast journalists,

ho have been vocal critics of VNRs as corporate propaganda, violate their own code of ethics by not disclosing the source.oluntary disclosure and attribution on the part of television news directors and journalists could end the debate.

It is ironic that the name Center for Media and Democracy implies non-interference of the government with the gate-eeping decisions of the media. An objective of CMD was to instigate governmental regulation to require journalists todentify the source of third party materials. If the Center for Media and Democracy had succeeded in its call for identificationf all source materials used in news stories, the result would have been a step toward FCC intrusion and censorship thatould have a chilling effect on journalists’ independence to use material from outside sources that might be of interest toheir viewers. It would have allowed the government to interfere with the gate-keeping decisions of journalists, which isot in the best interest of media and democracy.

eferences

iello, L., & Proffitt, J. M. (2008). VNR Usage: A matter of regulation or ethics? Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23, 219–234.arstow, D., & Stein, R. (2005, March). Under Bush, a new age of prepackaged news. New York Times, 1.alvert, C. (2008). What is news? The FCC and the new battle over the regulation of video news releases. Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 16,

361–389.hepesiuk, R. (2006, January/February). Fake news or valuable resource: The controversy surrounding the VNR. Quill, 11–13.onnolly-Ahern, C., Grantham, S., & Cabrera-Baukus, M. (2010). The effects of attribution of VNRs and risk on news viewers’ assessment of credibility.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 49–64.erville, T. (2005). Radical activist tactics: Overturning public relations conceptualizations. Public Relations Review, 31, 527–533.ozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 12, 3–22.ggerton, J. (2007, October). FCC’s VNR fine: More to come? Broadcasting & Cable, 12.arsetta, D., & Price, C. (2006). Fake TV news: Widespread and undisclosed. A multimedia report on television newsrooms’ use of material provided by PR

firms on behalf of paying clients. The Center for Media & Democracy, 1–113. http://www.prwatch.org/fakenewsederal Communications Commission. Sponsorship identification; list retention; related requirements. 47 CFR, 73.1212, hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs.ree Press. (2006). Take action – No fake news. https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=147. Retrieved February 2006.runig, L. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond. In J. Grunig (Ed.),

Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 503–530). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.allahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 27–59.armon, M. D., & White, C. (2001). How television news programs use video news releases. Public Relations Review, 27, 213–222.

iang, H., & Ni, L. (2007). Activists playing a dual role: Identities, organizational goals, and public relations practices. Paper presented to the InternationalCommunication Association.

ieberman, D. (1992, February). Fake news. TV Guide, 10–26.cCluskey, M. R. (2009). Activist group attributes and their influences on news portrayal. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 769–784.ational Association of Broadcast Communicators. (2006, October). NABC Letter to the FCC. www.broadcastcommunictors.org. Retrieved August 2009.eabody, J. (2007). When the flock ignores the shepherd – Corralling the undisclosed use of video news releases. Federal Communications Law Journal, 60,

577–596.adio-Television News Directors Association. (2006, October). RTNDA statement on VNR allegations. http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/rtnda-statement-

on-vnr-allegations115.php?g=11. Retrieved November 2009.eber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2005). Framing analysis of activist rhetoric: How the Sierra Club succeeds or fails at creating salient messages. Public Relations

Review, 31, 185–195.eber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18,

313–334.mith, M. F. (2005). Activism. In R. E. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 5–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.toker, K. (2005). Cases and commentaries: The solution is transparency: Identify VNRs. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20, 354–356.erder, K. P., & Schuch, A. (2008, May). Communicating for social change: An experimental analysis of activist message strategy effect on receiver variables.

Paper presented to the International Communication Association. Montreal, Canada.

ood, M. L. M., Nelson, M. R., Atkinson, L., & Lane, J. B. (2008). Social utility theory: Guiding labeling of VNRs as ethical and effective public relations. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 20, 231–249.yatt, W. N. (2005). Cases and commentaries: Journalism, public relations, VNRs, and news viewers. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20, 249–346.

och, L. M., Collins, E. L., Sisco, H. F., & Supa, D. H. (2008). Empowering the activist: Using framing devices on activist organizations’ web sites. Public RelationsReview, 34, 351–358.