Bush’s Truth in “Advertising”
A reader commented on a recent post regarding the General Accounting Office (GAO) accusing the Bush administration of violating laws by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush’s education policies. Specifically the GAO stated the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
"Not news…
Read [this article].
They all do it. Clinton was king!"
The article referenced above is “Fake News Under Bill Clinton” by Media Monitor. Media Monitor slams MSM and questions why MSM did not beat on Clinton for his use of video news releases (VNRs).
"If the media is truly so outraged about these VNRs, why were they not outraged during the Clinton administration?"
Nothing new there, the Bush administration and Republicans blame everything on Clinton. If Bush could legally be president for fifty contiguous years, he would still be blaming everything on the Clinton administration fifty years from now. Remember, Bush, like Jesus Christ, was perfect until a month ago. He didn’t make any mistakes.
The reader is right, to an extent. Administration generated propaganda has been done in the past. I can’t attest to what was done prior to Clinton, but, there are differences between the Bush and Clinton administrations’ VNRs. The salient point is whether there was any criminal activity involved. The Bush administration’s "advertisements" were in fact illegal. The Clinton administration did not violate any laws.
Both administrations generated VNRs at the taxpayer expense - I see nothing wrong with that whether Bush, Clinton or George Washington’s administration did it as long as no laws are broken, it is not factually misleading, and it is not intended for pure partisan benefit. In fact, a VNR can serve the public good, when the VNR’s subject and presentation are appropriate.
Media Monitor claims that MSM did not disclose Clinton’s VNRs. That simply is not true. It is a fact that Clinton’s VNR’s, etc. were disclosed, but I don’t know exactly when. It may have not been until after Media Monitor’s 4/28/05 article was written. But, that is moot, which I will point out by the end of this post. The Clinton administration’s media management was clearly noted at the time it was disclosed the Bush administration planted a "fake" member of the press at White House press briefings.
That notwithstanding, MSM whining or not whining is one thing, but President Bush’s woes are the result of GAO investigations and subsequent declaration of illegal activity. MSM is not responsible for the Bush administration’s problem. Media Monitor should direct their frustrations to the Bush administration for its blatant illegal activity and/or the GAO for doing its job and outing the administration’s malfeasance.
Furthermore, the Clinton administration paid for the production and distribution of VNRs, but they did not, to my knowledge, pay a reporter or broadcaster to present the VNRs as news articles (i.e. something they did an investigative report on) and particularly did not pay beyond the normal fee charged for production and/or broadcasting. In other words, they did not line the pockets of the reporter or the broadcaster (bribe) to present covert propaganda. The Clinton VNRs may have had the appearance of news content, but they were not attached with statements such as “Armstrong Williams reporting from…” or, “Armstrong Williams for [broadcaster] News…”
In stark contrast to the Bush administration’s productions, the Clinton VNRs contained some type of disclosure. It may have been small print in the credits or not prominently displayed like a CNN banner, but the disclosure was there.
Media Monitor referenced Glen T. Cameron to lend credence to their argument.
“Back in 1996, journalism and public relations expert Glen T. Cameron wrote a landmark study of a Clinton VNR. It was billed as an informative first look at the way broadcast television news stations use VNRs. Since that study occurred almost 10 years ago, you’d think media would’ve caught up by now, and reported on some Clinton VNRs.”
Again, they have – the statement is absolutely false. Media Monitor should review other studies by Mr. Cameron. Specifically, “Does Reputation Management Reap Rewards? A Path Analysis of Corporate Reputation Advertising’s Impacts on Brand Attitudes and Purchase Decisions”, a study published in 2000 by Jongmin Park, Lisa Lyon, and Glen T. Cameron. While this study is based on corporations, the principles are equally applicable to government or any other organization.
In very simple terms, the study cites reputation as a critical element in marketing or branding. The quality of an organization’s reputation has a direct effect on the acceptance of what is advertised and it also is a determinant as to where or how the organization should or will market their organization.
Therefore, acceptance of what is advertised begins first with what an organization’s reputation is before a marketing campaign is even released. Furthermore, the quality of the organization’s reputation has a direct effect on the development of the organization’s marketing strategy.
“Corporate reputation, built in part on corporate image advertising, is based on how the company conducts or is perceived as conducting its business. Corporate reputation is a set of attributes ascribed to a firm, inferred from the firm’s past actions, about which one infers that reliability is an attribute of this person or company. By doing so, one makes judgments about past information and uses these signals to form beliefs in predicting future actions. Likewise, corporate image is like a picture in a consumer’s mind about a corporation’s character and personality.”
“A good reputation allows for easier product introduction because customers feel that a “guarantee” comes with it.”
“…A good image or reputation can allow a company not only to implement its present plans, but also to purse its goals in the future. This has been described as the ‘halo effect’ – where a generally positive attitude toward the company lends the company to immunity to a certain extent.’ ” [Emphasis added.]
The answer to Media Monitor’s question, “If the media is truly so outraged about these VNRs, why were they not outraged during the Clinton administration?” is profoundly answered in the last two sentences.
When you are a bunch of crooks and liars, don’t expect to be treated like saints.
—–
