Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sparring partners
Next Post: September 23 through October 15?
Posted in:
* Eric Scott doesn’t like the practice of using clips of TV news anchors/reporters in political ads…
The Republican candidate for governor, Bruce Rauner, is now running a commercial featuring local TV news anchor lead-ins to negative stories about his Democratic opponent. It shows three clips from newscasts that aired on stations in the Champaign-Decatur and Rockford TV markets where anchors are reading copy leading into stories, but all you see and hear is a quick sentence that is taken out of context when shown in a political ad. Worse yet, the video clips are not actually what viewers saw when these newscasts aired live, but post-produced recordings and slick video editing added some “darkened graininess” and quick-flash negative imagery to give it more of a dark and scary look for further manipulation — all trick, no treat.
But I raise the red flag for the much larger issue at hand, which deals with trashing journalistic ethics and tarnishing the hard-earned reputations of those unwillingly being featured in these ads. Unfortunately, these media professionals have absolutely no control over their appearances or the power to stop this practice from happening.
At the end of the day, journalists must always maintain their credibility as a trustworthy and objective source of information. You want to watch a certain TV newscast or read stories from your favorite news source because you want to get the details from people you trust — you want to hear it from them first.
By leveraging video clips of TV news anchors and reporters for political gain, candidates and their campaigns are wilfully discrediting these journalists in using their images and voices to suggest they are endorsing one candidate by criticizing the opponent. This is different from campaigns showing newspaper headlines and mast head logos in ads — those ads usually reflect actual newspaper endorsements and don’t use individual reporters’ names or images to strengthen their point.
He goes on to upbraid the Quinn campaign for using the now-infamous Carol Marin clip in the “bury her” ad.
Meh.
* The “Fair Use Doctrine” allows campaign to use clips of what TV reporters say in their ads, just as it allows people like me to use those same clips right here.
As a result, everyone in TV and radio knows - or should know - that whatever they say could be used by a campaign.
* NBC 5 posted this on its website after the Quinn ad began airing…
NBC 5 strongly objects to use of our material in a campaign ad, and we asked the Quinn campaign to not use it.
NBC 5 is required by law to air campaign commercials bought by bona-fide candidates for public office so you will see it on our air.
We want to make clear that this commercial is not an endorsement of Governor Quinn by Carol Marin or NBC 5. We will continue to work hard to make sure we cover both candidates for governor fairly and objectively.
And that’s as it should be.
* The Rauner campaign has been using one of my Crain’s Chicago Business columns in its entirety as a fundraising tool for months. I haven’t objected for a couple of reasons. First, the copyright issue is up to Crain’s to deal with, and secondly, those mailers probably put my column in front of a lot more eyeballs than Crain’s did. I’m not ashamed of that piece, in fact, I’m pretty proud of it.
I really hate it when campaigns use stuff from behind my subscriber firewall, and I often make a big private stink about that. Fortunately, such behavior has been kept to a minimum this year. And I was pretty darned surprised when a candidate in the primary used one of my comments beneath a blog post to attack his opponent, but whatever. That’s life and it re-taught me a lesson: If you don’t want your words used by a campaign against somebody else, then watch what you say.
/rant
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sparring partners
Next Post: September 23 through October 15?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
One of the weirder complaints in a while.
Everybody uses media for their spots. Rauner is using clips of anchors talking about NRI and IDOT.
So what?
Pesky first amendment.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:20 pm
Look, if the guys in TV really cared about getting the story right and news, would they be on TV?
We live in a society where vast crimes are perpetrated, eg Iraq War and Financial Crisis.
Corporate Media generally avoids accountability for these stories or acts as a PR department for the perpetrators.
For Corporate Media people to fret over this stuff that’s allowed by Fair Use b/c they want the ethical standards to be higher…
Get over yourselves. There are a long list of things big and small that need to be cleaned-up in Corporate Media.
I’m involved in politics to make our society work better and be more ethical.
Eric Scott is picking something he can be sanctimonious about so he can avoid 10,000 more important issues.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:23 pm
Hey Eric Scott….So be it.
Until today I had no idea how stinging those words are.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:24 pm
Bottom line;
The Press complains about campaigns not being factual.
Campaigns use newscast footage, newspaper articles, news soundbites on radio, media complains about being used.
Pick. A. Lane.
Never mind, “Fair Use Doctrine” already settled it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:27 pm
–”pesky first amendment”–
Actually it’s FAR from settled that the first amendment gives candidates a right to use copyrighted material, including that of a news organization. Both politicans and media have backed down rather than fully litigate:
http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2012/01/a-copyright-hangover-political-fair-use-revisited-again/
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:29 pm
Chuck Todd of Meet the Press was complaining about McConnell using his clip saying Grimes
“disqualified herself” by refusing to say she voted for Obama. Please report the facts and only the facts.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:33 pm
Journalistic ethics?!!! Hilarious!!! Rich your killin me!!! That’s a good one!! Omg! Ahhhhhh
Comment by William j Kelly Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:51 pm
=== I raise the red flag for the much larger issue at hand, which deals with trashing journalistic ethics ===
Because that’s the job of tabloid reporters, hyperventilating columnists, and partisan editorial boards.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:53 pm
I guess this is how the elected officials get back at the media for their constant, bs partisan spin on both sides. Fox, MSNBC, are you both listening? You can be held accountable as well…..
Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:56 pm
I was kind of shocked Chuck Todd said that. He leaped way over the “journalism” line into “dramatic talking head” territory from what I saw of it…and I say that as a conservative. I don’t watch too much TV, so maybe he’s always been that way? I don’t necessary like how the statement is being used, but he did put it there.
Comment by liandro Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 1:59 pm
===* The “Fair Use Doctrine” allows campaign to use clips of what TV reporters say in their ads, just as it allows people like me to use those same clips right here.
As a result, everyone in TV and radio knows - or should know - that whatever they say could be used by a campaign.
===
There’s using TV anchors/reporters and then there’s USING TV anchors/reporters.
Quinn used Marin’s voice but not her image. He quoted her verbatim and he used the whole quote. He didn’t distort what she said, he just played it with the words appearing on the screen to make it crystal clear (I’m not suggesting she mumbles).
Rauner used their voices AND their images. It may seem like a trivial distinction to some, but TV reporters really do care about the difference.
Rauner used EXTREMELY short snippets–reminding me of how one might clip letters and words out of a newspaper if one were planning on sending a ransom note, or crudely Photoshop someone’s image.
Quinn typically sticks a whole lot closer to the truth, probably because of how he was raised and also because he’s a relatively moral politician, whereas Rauner is genuine, 24-carat, compulsive, pathological liar. Rauner can’t help it. It’s just permanently ingrained into his personality.
Steve Zorn made that crystal clear in his superb and exceptionally insightful March 4th article titled, “Rauner’s attack on Quinn is a crime against truth.” He describes how Rauner seems to lie reflexively, unthinkingly, automatically, at the drop of a hat and for extremely small stakes, even when it is completely unnecessary and there is a high likelihood of being discovered.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2014/03/rauners-attack-on-quinn-is-a-crime-against-truth.html
Whether Rauner was born that way or he learned it growing up, or both, regardless he simply can’t help it. “He will lie and commit other dishonest deeds for astonishingly small stakes and under much greater risks of being discovered than will the ordinary scoundrel.” –Hervey Cleckley
It’s just the way he is, and it’s an excellent reason all by itself not to vote for him.
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 2:00 pm
Scott’s complaint has merit. The campaigns do not merely use TV news clips. They manipulate them to convey messages other than those delivered in the original broadcast. This might be a widespread practice, but it will never be appropriate.
Comment by Jimmy Jazz Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 2:08 pm
Rich, journalistic integrity is a topic close to my heart as well! Enjoy! http://bit.ly/1wi4nXD
Comment by William j Kelly Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 2:14 pm
I believe it is a valid concern.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 2:28 pm
I guess I’ve always wondered why the CapFax business model is sacrosanct and shouldn’t be subject to fair use or disruption.
Comment by Marty Funkhouser Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 2:41 pm
===CapFax business model is sacrosanct ===
Because I say so.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 2:47 pm
“If you don’t want your words used by a campaign against somebody else, then watch what you say.”
Or hide behind a silly pseudonym.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM (@MisterJayEm) Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 3:08 pm
ah, I still remember the day when you took a newspaper, cut things out, and pasted them to turn it into a mailer/door piece. even recall someone tracking down a piece on radio for use. come on news media. if you say it/write it, it’s public, and the public includes politicians who can use it.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 4:12 pm
This technique is offensive, no doubt, but gee whiz, compared to everything else, it darn near looks tame and ethical.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Oct 17, 14 @ 4:48 pm