Since taking office, the Bush Administration has done an amazingly effective job in controlling its message. It’s no secret that they’ve helped accomplish this by blurring the ethical lines between independent media coverage and public relations stunts. We’ve seen commentators and columnists paid to promote administration policies. We’ve seen embarrassing materials deleted from (non-political) government websites. We’ve seen Presidential town meetings where where only supporters are invited to participate. And, of course, we’ve seen government-produced segments being inserted into television news programs without any acknowledgment of the story’s source.

These pre-packaged pseudo-stories—called Video News Releases or VNR’s—are designed to be nearly indistinguishable from the other stories shown in a typical news broadcast. Considering that a good number of these segments run without any indication of governmental involvement, it’s not surprising that Congress’ Government Accountability Office recently said that such segments violate rules against “covert propaganda”. The Bush Administration, however, thinks otherwise:

The legal counsel’s office “does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency’s role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or ‘covert,’ regardless of whether the content of the message is ‘propaganda,’ ” Bradbury wrote. “Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency.”

While the media outlets themselves are open to (much justified) criticism for airing VNRs without acknowledging their governmental origins, the idea of the administration using tax dollars to covertly sell the public on certain polices is disgusting. To hear the administration claim that the content is non-biased, and therefore not propaganda, is laughable. A puff story created by the government will invariably shine a positive light on whatever policy is being pushed, complete with pre-scripted “interviews” of administration officials. While a government VNR may be technically factual, you can bet there will be no balance or dissenting viewpoints available to viewers.

No one ever said that all propaganda had to be obvious.

If these VNRs are as innocuous as the administration suggests, shouldn’t any group be able to produce their own segments to be inserted into news programs? If 1115.org got a camera and recorded a strictly-factual segment that raised doubts about Bush’s Social Security reforms, would we have the ability to incorporate our work into the local 6 o’clock news? Doubtful, unless the station happened to be Wayne’s World-style Public Access. Yet the administration’s VNRs will be accepted and broadcast by some stations without any difficulty. Local anchors are even provided with “lead in” text, so they can smoothly transition in and out of the VNR.

When you turn on the television late at night, there’s a good chance that you will find an infomercial for some sort of kitchen appliance, exercise equipment, baldness cure or get-rich-quick scheme. They go out of their way to tell you that the program is a paid advertisement, not a show produced by the network or station. Our media—the treasured “free press” we like to show as one of America’s great institutions—are, in certain cases, not even meeting this weak standard. It’s pathetic, an insult to anyone who has fought to keep the government and the media separate. The VNR is nothing more than the news equivalent of the Salad Shooter, embraced by media outlets too lazy to fill their programs with actual reporting.

Last word to GAO Comptroller General David M. Walker:

“This is more than a legal issue. It’s also an ethical issue and involves important good government principles, namely the need for openness in connection with government activities and expenditures,” Walker said. “We should not just be seeking to do what’s arguably legal. We should be doing what’s right.”