The nightly news is not what it used to be. Today, much of what we see on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the local news hour is a novel composite, featuring video news releases (VNRs) produced by public relations firms.

If you are surprised, you are not alone. The truth is unsettling. Nightly news is no longer exclusively the product of network or local news crews but is a deft combination of network or station originated stories and corporate or politically sponsored footage. In fact, according to a recent Nielsen Media Research Survey, about 80 percent of U.S. news directors air VNRs several times a month, and 100 percent of American television newsrooms now use VNRs in their newscasts.

So, what are VNRs? Who pays for them? Who is producing and distributing them? Why do television stations and networks use them? Have they eroded the quality and objectivity of news reporting or improved the precision of nightly news?

What ethical questions do they raise? And what, after all, should viewers be doing while corporate and political sponsors, PR firms, broadcasters, and others grapple with the changing nature of nightly news?

In this article, the spotlight is turned on these little-asked questions.

WHAT ARE VNRs?

Simply put, a VNR is a film clip, maybe a minute or two in length, usually produced by a public relations firm and made available to television stations and networks by satellite feed. Dozens of PR firms now produce VNRs. Hundreds of commercial companies sponsor them, hoping for favorable coverage of a story relating to their particular business, and upward of 700 local stations now use them in their nightly news broadcasts.

Moreover, Congress and the White House have gotten into the act. Congress creates VNRs in its own fully equipped, tax-payer-funded television station in the belly of the Rayburn Building in Washington. Meanwhile, the Clinton administration hires out, paying companies like Medialink of New York--at taxpayer expense--to transmit VNRs by satellite to stations around the country.

Fully defining a VNR is tougher than one might think. Some network representatives and stations distinguish between audiovisual VNRs and so-called B-rolls, or voiceless film clips, which are presumed to be closer to what their own crews might shoot. Still others broaden the VNR definition to include any film not shot by a news organization itself, counting even space shuttle footage or Defense Department "file" tapes as VNRs.

But concern is generated chiefly by VNRs that are corporate or politically sponsored for the express purpose of garnering favorable television coverage under the guise of independent, third-party reporting.

More than 4,000 VNRs were distributed to news programs last year by satellite distributors such as industry leader Medialink of New York.

Medialink makes VNRs available to television stations and networks by alerting newsroom computers of a VNR "story" and providing the time and satellite feed coordinates. As Medialink explains, "High-priority designations set off `flash' signals in newsroom computer systems, bringing the alert to the immediate attention of editors and producers." Multiple transmissions, faxes, and phone calls then supplement the effort.

But long before newsrooms can decide whether to air a VNR, someone has to create and pay for it. Typically, PR firms create VNRs, and corporate or political clients pay. Thus, A.V.S. Post in Washington, a company with 15 years of VNR experience, has clients from Burger King and Xerox to the AFL-CIO.

Examples are legion. VNR producer Hilton/Sucherman Communications in New York does VNR work for Exxon, Allied Signal, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merrill Lynch, IBM, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, the Tribune Company, and Pacific Gas & Electric. Aurora-4 Video Arts of New York serves VNR clients as diverse as Avis, Cannon, 800Flowers, Nikon, and the New York Islanders.

Not surprisingly, VNRs are also diverse. Thus, Gourvitz Communications of New York last year produced a VNR for Univision on use of the Spanish language in the United States, a B-roll for Crayola Crayons on its "Celebration of 90 Years of Color," and year-end VNR business reports for Sony, 3M, and Platinum Guild, each with placement on at least 50 stations.

Likewise, Auritt Communications in New York got paid for a B-roll to promote Madonna's book Sex, and News/Broadcast Network (NBN) of New York did the VNR for Calgene's "Flav'r Sav'r" bioengineered tomatoes. As John Bailey, director of marketing for NBN, explained, "Everybody in the TV business needed that piece of footage to run as they read the 10- or 20-second story."

Says Bailey, "It was a legitimate business story: the first whole food, genetically engineered, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for human consumption."

Did the VNR work? Coverage, says Bailey, was astonishing, reaching "something like 300 or 400 broadcasts, on every network, every station, making it the single most viewed new-product announcement video release ever."

What do corporate sponsors pay for such VNR news exposure? Interviews reveal a range from $10,000 to $100,000 for production of a single VNR. And, it is clear, sponsors expect something in return.

WHY DOES TV USE VNRs?

NBN's Bailey was unusually candid. Local news stations "have no budget, fewer [camera] crews than they used to have, and don't travel first class anymore; those days are over.

"Almost every news director you ever ask," Bailey continued, "will respond, `We rarely use [VNRs], if ever, and if we do, we always identify them.' Well, it's complete bull."

Confirming Nielsen's numbers, a network source who requested anonymity added that local stations are "tempted" to run VNRs in their news hour because they are under enormous financial pressures.

Interestingly, however, disclaimers of VNR use are not limited to local stations. Several calls to CNN headquarters in Atlanta produced firm denials that VNRs are regularly used by CNN, and a call to ABC News brought a similar disclaimer.

Yet, calls to various VNR producers confirmed that CNN does use a satellite feed to pick up VNRs--and not so irregularly. Medialink and other VNR vendors identified specific instances when, by using a new electronic tracking system called Signa, they could tell CNN had often picked up VNRs. Signa, of course, was developed because VNR sponsors want to know whether, when, where, and how often their VNRs are used.

In addition, a number of VNR vendors list CNN as a client, for example, NBN of New York and American Film & Video of Maryland. Others list CNN as a user of their VNRs, among them, Impressive Images of Atlanta and MG Productions of New York.

Nor is CNN the only media giant that appears to be reluctant to admit using VNRs. ABC, NBC, and CBS each profess "rare" or no recent use of VNRs, yet each network is touted as a client or recipient of VNRs by leading VNR producers. The latter group includes Edit Masters of New Jersey, Hilton/Sucherman Productions, Neal Marshad Productions of New York, the News Group of Florida, Orbis Broadcast Group of Chicago, Impressive Images, and MG Productions.

One explanation for the contradiction and the stout network denials of VNR use is that networks may be defining VNRs narrowly as full-run, voice-over, unedited film clips or promotional material, whereas VNR producers define VNRs more broadly, including any film clip they produced and the network ran, whether for 2 or 30 seconds, edited or not, with or without voice, or for a corporate, trade association, public service, or government sponsor.

Still, it is clear that television stations across the country are using VNRs at an accelerating pace and for fairly obvious financial-crunch and ease-of-retrieval reasons.

POSITIVE ASPECTS

Are VNRs eroding the quality and objectivity of news reporting or improving the precision, scope, and timeliness of the news? What ethical questions are raised by expanding VNR use?

In August 1992, a New York Times article noted that "deadline-pressured, budget-crunched news staffs routinely use portions of video news releases slickly produced by vested interests in the health care industry, without telling the audience that part of what they're seeing is from slanted sources." Health care aside, are VNRs one more threat to objective reporting?

To hear VNR sponsors, producers, and satellite distributors talk, these costly film ventures are mere modern-day news releases, little different from an old printed press release. They simply announce something the sponsor believes is newsworthy and distantly hopes will be covered on the evening news.

Indeed, common VNR types include the following: development of a new drug (for example, last year's VNR on the proposed drug Detoxohol, for speedier metabolism of alcohol); the opening of a new foreign market or product line (as with McDonald's in Russia or Calgene's new tomato); new environmental policies (like Dow Chemical's announcement of a nonpolluting chemical plant); industry discoveries (for example, last year's announcement by the Yogurt Association that yogurt may help prevent colds by boosting immunity); or a company press conference to refute a government charge (as when General Motors rebutted charges of a defective truck).

Other incentives operate to create newsworthy VNRs. The vice president for marketing of Pintak Communications International, a Washington-based VNR producer, noted in an interview that "we owe it to ourselves and our clients to say to a client, `That's a great concept, but it's not news."' Why? Because, "one bad experience, and there goes your reputation."

Pintak has created some unique VNRs. On location in Armenia last year for a fundraising VNR sponsored by an Armenian-American organization, Pintak caught what the networks needed: film of the cruel Armenian winter of 1993. "We had the first video coming out of Armenia on what life was like during that winter of starvation and energy shortages," says Pintak's spokesman, and it ran on all networks.

Thus, in fairness, although corporate VNRs have even been derided by critics as "fake news," there are two sides to the debate, and both deserve to be heard. Most corporate VNRs are not blunt PR instruments or frame-by-frame product promotions, as critics charge. Instead, they tend to be pinpoint reports on something a broadcaster might legitimately consider newsworthy.

Another good example is the Pepsi VNRs last year that disproved reports of syringes in Pepsi bottles. Nick Peters, vice president of marketing at Medialink, points out the value to both Pepsi and the public from these VNRs. The first Pepsi VNR showed that Pepsi bottles are inverted just before filling, making insertion of a foreign object impossible. The second showed footage caught by a store camera of the actual tampering.

Before looking at the arguments sponsors leave on the cutting room floor, we should also sweep clean some common confusion. VNRs are not "infomercials," the long-play advertisements made memorable by Ross Perot. Unlike infomercials, VNRs seldom run in their entirety and do not eliminate editor discretion. VNRs are offered free to stations, which can chop, dub, or snip prior to airing.

VNR PRO

Because the VNR is a professional video that has been produced at corporate or political expense, it represents a big cost savings for cash-strapped news organizations.

Some VNRs can provide footage of obscure or fast-breaking events that might otherwise be unobtainable.

The occasional VNR can actually enhance the public good, as happened with a news video released by Pepsi that debunked the possibility of syringes in Pepsi bottles.

VNR CON

Politicians can use taxpayer funds to produce videos whose purpose is to enhance their reelection prospects.

Political VNRs can avoid the tough questions, becoming soft-sell advertisements for a particular public policy.

There is no code of ethics in the electronic media industry governing the handling of VNRs.

THE `FAKE NEWS' CHARGE

Ironically, the toughest critic of VNRs has been TV Guide, which recently spearheaded an attack on the PR industry and VNR sponsors under the eye-popping headline "Fake News." TV Guide and others take issue with use of any film not produced by a network or station.

Of course, the allegation of "fake news" is serious and raises important ethical questions. Nevertheless, erecting straw men in the debate over VNR use is hardly helpful. TV Guide's across-the-board condemnation of VNRs amounts to slaying a straw man. It oversimplifies and disserves the public with sensational overtones. Who, after all, would not be outraged at a conspiracy of networks, local stations, PR firms, and corporate sponsors to promote "fake news"?

The VNR debate has grown beyond that allegation and is now evolving toward defining clear guidelines for ethical use of VNRs. One question being raised is, What responsibilities does a news organization have for ensuring continued reliability and accuracy when it imports a B-roll or VNR into the nightly news?

I put that question to David Bartlett, president of the Radio/Television News Directors Association (RTNDA), the primary professional association of electronic journalists. To begin with, he admitted, there is a natural tension between PR firms and news directors: "They [corporate sponsors and PR firms] are trying to peddle a story, and we [electronic broadcasters] are trying not to be used."

But there is more to it than this, isn't there?

"Yes, today's VNRs are not like those phony, packaged stories put out by PR firms in the past," which were deceptive, says Bartlett. Today, news directors have just one obligation: source disclosure. "If you disclose to your audience clearly where the material came from . . . for example, plastering `NASA VIDEO' on the screen when you show a NASA video, then so be it." The station has done its job, as "there's nothing wrong with VNRs per se," says Bartlett.

But that analysis seems, if essentially true, still somehow incomplete. Even proper source identification does not erase favorable images, shots like a sun rising behind a fast-food chain as it opens in Moscow; staged interviews of well-made-up CEOs, lab technicians, or employees; gorgeous evergreen settings for corporate environmental initiatives; and the simple tricks of lighting, composition, angle, and filter--all used to create the "perfect" VNR.

Yes, source identification is important, but even sourced VNRs can alter the news, conveying a favorable impression of a sponsor's product or business. Although this may not warrant slowing VNR use, it should be reason enough for heightened viewer caution. Being put at ease by source identification is like trusting that you have erased from jurors' minds impressions drawn from inadmissible evidence with a simple jury instruction. Quite often, the impression remains. And the residual impression left by a fully identified VNR is still much of what a VNR sponsor has paid for.

But, returning to location, do news directors have an unequivocal obligation to disclose the source of every VNR used as "news"? RTNDA's Bartlett hedges: You could argue that the VNR source need not be disclosed if the station believes that the credibility of the story is not called into question, he says. It seems, then, that much of the industry is united around a "sometimes yes, sometimes no" standard.

Source disclosure is, today, the nub of the VNR debate. Already, an ethics code for the PR industry on VNRs has surfaced. The Code of Good Practice for Video News Releases emerged in 1992 and continues to be promoted by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), a group of 35 PR firms.

MEDIA ETHICS

What about a code of ethics on VNRs for television and electronic journalists? Electronic journalism is divided. At one end, people like Fred Friendly, national dean of journalism and Columbia Journalism School professor, insist that source identification be a minimum ethical requirement.

Interviewed for this article, he sounded a note close to TV Guide, saying use, under some circumstances, is unacceptable. He added, "When I talk to students, I tell them, `Don't touch these things with a ten-foot pole.'"

Friendly's skepticism is balanced by those more trusting of industry ethics. RTNDA's Bartlett says, "I can't speak for every station, and I would be naive to say that every station adheres to the high standard of ethics I wish they would, but I think the vast majority follow sound ethical behavior" when using VNRs.

Other industry sources estimate that source disclosure nears 80 percent. But many VNR producers, who track their VNR use electronically through Signa, are less sanguine. A spokesman for Pintak Communications explained why he believes local stations run VNRs uncredited. "They [local stations] don't want to be seen as relying on what, unfortunately, has been categorized as industrial propaganda."

Source identification is plainly not a vendor problem, because most identify their VNR sponsor. Medialink, for example, has named sponsors since its founding in 1987. President Larry Moskowitz spelled out Medialink's policy: "While no one here tells a news director he must use the name of the sponsor, it has always been our policy to name the sponsor, since we feel news personnel need to know who paid for the VNR."

Thus, with a code of ethics already in place for the PR industry, the next place to turn for insistence on ethical VNR use is to the electronic media industry. Observers say that what is needed is a VNR-specific code of ethics for the electronic media industry, applicable to both corporate and politically sponsored VNRs.

Bartlett explains why political VNRs are problematic: "Fake President Clinton trying to peddle whatever he's trying to peddle this week: The danger is that the audience might think that an interview with President Clinton was generated in a way that it was not. Often, the station did not call the White House and secure a hard-hitting interview."

So? "The White House doesn't want you to know that they are spending taxpayers' money peddling these phony interviews with the president," explains Bartlett. "I mean, that harms his credibility." But, he adds, "that applies to [VNRs by] any politician, since members of Congress do it routinely."

Where does all this leave us? Fully 81 percent of the American public gets most of its news from television, according to a 1992 Roper poll. The average VNR, according to Medialink, will "get 30 to 40 airings and reach 2 to 4 million confirmed viewers," with some reaching "tens of millions of viewers" and rare VNRs reaching the whole viewing nation, (for example, the Pepsi VNRs got 3,170 airings and reached 500 million viewers).

In the end, although VNRs offer certain palpable advantages, including cost savings for news organizations, footage of obscure or fast-breaking events, and even rare opportunities to enhance the public good, they present risks to the public, including potential inaccuracy and deception.

The bottom line? Viewers should not believe everything they see and should maintain a healthy skepticism when viewing the news. There appears to be no grand conspiracy to promote "fake news," but there is growing risk that your news is deftly weighted in favor of an opinion you might not have had when you sat down and picked up the remote.