Fake News, California Style

Matt Welch | February 28, 2005

From the L.A. Times:

Using taxpayer money, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has sent television stations statewide a mock news story extolling a proposal that would benefit political boosters in the business community by ending mandatory lunch breaks for many hourly workers.

The tape looks like a news report and is narrated by a former television reporter who now works for the state. [...] Snippets aired on as many as 18 stations earlier this month, the administration said.

Whole thing here.

Comments

Warren|2.28.05 @ 11:53AM|#

...But unlike an actual news report, it does not provide views critical of the proposed changes.

Hahaha

|2.28.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Food is for girly men!

And people wonder why I'm still pro-union.

|2.28.05 @ 12:14PM|#

the really ridiculous part is that none of these news agencies contacted the sender to confirm if the shorts were actual news reports. Seems like a little due diligence would have been a good idea.

SPD - how can you be pro-union?

|2.28.05 @ 12:42PM|#

There is no way that employers are going to let employees take a lunch "when they want". At these kinds of jobs (cashiers, clerks, etc.), you go to lunch when they tell you or you don't go at all, because only so many people can go to lunch at the same time. The proposed rule--while not specifically-enough described to get its full impact--actually seems more onerous than the existing one.

|2.28.05 @ 1:18PM|#

There is no way that employers are going to let employees take a lunch "when they want". At these kinds of jobs (cashiers, clerks, etc.), you go to lunch when they tell you or you don't go at all, because only so many people can go to lunch at the same time.

Quite frankly, I'd rather have my employer telling me when to take a lunch than the government. And if I worked at a place that was super-strict about my lunch break, then I would get a new job.

Yes, it sucks for some people that their lunch breaks are (er...would be) strictly regimented by their employer. But hell, it also sucks that I didn't get a new Lexus for my Christmas bonus last year...but you don't see me petitioning the government to force my employer to do so.

I'd tend to support this legislation, but I do not support these fake news tactics that seem to be the new "in" thing in the political class.

|2.28.05 @ 1:28PM|#

When do you suppose was the last time Arnold wasn't allowed to take a lunch break?

Larry A|2.28.05 @ 2:12PM|#

What's a "lunch break?"

|2.28.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Video news releases have been around for at least 20 years, haven't they? They get sent out in the hopes that TV stations will use them, in whole or (probably more likely) by using "snippets" as was done here.

Just like written news releases get sent to newspapers to be used in whole or in part. You include quotes from yourself if you want. It gives you a shot at media exposure for your issue without having to set up interviews with reporters, etc.

Are the critics just not paying attention?

Aside from the content of the proposed law, is the controversial thing that the governor's office used tax money to push a particular view on an issue? Is that unusual?

|2.28.05 @ 2:53PM|#

When do you suppose was the last time Arnold wasn't allowed to take a lunch break?

When was the last time he needed a state law to have a lunch break?

|2.28.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Talk about much ado about nothing. State and federal agencies regularly send out press releases to local news media, and they are frequently written by former reporters, now working as "public information officers." They usually include a self-serving quote from the agency director or the governor, that more often than not was actually written by the PIO. The boss just signs off on it.

When I was a reporter I used to get them all the time from those agencies, and when I became a PIO I did them myself. And surprise, I never sought out an opposing view to include in the release. That's the reporter's job. Why are reporters suddenly pretending that this is something new and troubling?

|2.28.05 @ 2:57PM|#

HE probably didn't need a state law, Don. You're right - the idea of someone in Arnold's position being denied decent, humane treatment absent legal protection is pretty farfetched.

Matt Welch|2.28.05 @ 3:38PM|#

DanG -- And your press releases were almost certainly labeled as such. That's the basic government issue; there should be disclosure that the information is government PR. The other issue is the gob-smacking stupidity & laziness of TV stations who run this stuff unedited & unlabeled, though this is not something that requires legislative attention....

|2.28.05 @ 4:19PM|#

"Using taxpayer money Schwarzenegger's administration has sent television stations ..."

Arnold, never do that again and to make amends, find another budget item to cut. Remember principle, Arnold. Less government means more liberty.

|2.28.05 @ 4:45PM|#

"Less government means more liberty."

Yah, vid owd da govuhmint, I coulda groped a lot more uh do vimmen.

|3.1.05 @ 4:45AM|#

Joe, please remind me - why wouldn't my employer treat me humanely unless the law forced him?

|3.1.05 @ 9:10AM|#

Pedro

You are obviously a proletarian and incapable of understanding that you are being exploited.

|3.1.05 @ 9:11AM|#

"the idea of someone in Arnold's position being denied decent, humane treatment absent legal protection is pretty farfetched."

Hmmm...well, Joe, my employer treats me humanely. I get lunch whenever I want, I get benefits, a fat bonus, loose schedule, etc. And all this, without "legal protection". They value my services, so they treat me well to keep me happy and keep me from leaving. And if, suddenly, they told me that I couldn't have a lunch break or vacation time, then I would probably demand that they give me such, or else I'd quit, and go to an employer who would offer those things. And if enough people left, they wouldn't have anyone here to work, and they would either fold, or take up better policies. This is called natural market correction. The only "legal protection" that an employer needs is the protection against an employer forcing them to do something against their will. And last I looked, slavery was not legal; thus, all these "poor, unfortunate souls" who don't get to take lunch @ noon on the dot, they have all entered into their current employment contracts of their own volition. So, if they don't like their lunch break schedule, they are free to quit.

|3.1.05 @ 9:12AM|#

er, my italics html tags fucked up. sorry.

|3.1.05 @ 10:02AM|#

I don't know your employer, Pedro. I couldn't really say how that particular boss would treat his employees.

Evan, that works just fine, as long as there are plenty of other jobs available, being offered by employers who don't mind competing against someone who grinds down his labor costs by mistreating his employees.

|3.1.05 @ 2:03PM|#

Matt- was it unclear to recipients where these video news releases came from? It doesn't seem that way from the article. If it was unclear, or was somehow disguised to conceal the fact that they came from the State of California, then that is a problem. Generally, the way we'd deal with VNRs is to use the soundbites to represent one side and then go out and get our own bites and video to localize the story. If TV stations run them unedited (or if a newspaper runs a print version) then that does say something about their news judgement, but nothing about the rightness or wrongess of the State in sending them out. Talk about fake news...this is a fake issue.