Schwarzenegger video news release gets bad reviews

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Schwarzenegger administration video packaged as a television news story has labor leaders and one lawmaker outraged.

The video promotes regulations that give workers the choice of taking a meal break or going home early.

"It's a blatant attempt to manipulate the media," Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, said yesterday. "If a television station is lazy enough just to take this video (and run it), it completely manipulates and skews the story."

He suggested the video violated a ban on spending tax money to produce propaganda and said he would ask the attorney general's office to investigate.

But an administration spokesman, Rick Rice, said the video was "just a news release" and that television stations were "free to use it however they want. They're journalists so I am assuming they would do what journalists do, which is look at both sides of the story.

"We don't think this is political ... nor is it propaganda," he added. "It's just a news release on an issue the labor unions are completely opposed to. They're looking to anything they can to detract from the true issue, which is their opposition to our regulations."

The video, which Koretz said was run verbatim by at least five stations, includes a suggested introduction by the news anchor and interviews with a restaurant manager, grower, forklift supervisor and an administration official.

It says the regulations would provide "real-life relief" for employees by giving them the choice of taking meal breaks or getting off work earlier. "Workers with special circumstances such as medical conditions, child-care issues or caring for elderly parents would have flexibility with their work schedules," an announcer says.

There's no comment in the video from anyone opposed to the regulations, which interpret a law that says an employer must provide at least a 30-minute meal break in the first five hours of an employee's shift.

The regulations, which still need approval from the Office of Administrative Law to take effect, say an employer would meet that requirement by telling employees of their meal rights and giving them an opportunity to take a break.

"Obviously they would have to mutually agree on when to take it," Rice said. "The employer still has to provide it (within the first five hours), but if the employee wants to take it later or go home early they would have to mutually agree."

Koretz and labor representatives said the wording of the regulations could lead to "a lot of opportunity for mischief" by employers.

"If the employer says, 'Nobody around here really takes their meal period; we all just kind of like to work through lunch,' the worker who wants to take their meal period is going to feel intimidated," said Barry Broad, a lobbyist for several labor unions.

Angie Wei, a lobbyist the California Labor Federation, complained that the administration put out the video before hearing complaints about the regulations from "hundreds" of workers at a series of public hearings.

"This administration continues to hold itself out as wanting to abide by the will of the people," she said. "The people are speaking but nobody's listening."

Rice said the video was an attempt to promote the hearings and that the regulations probably would be modified after the hearings are completed tomorrow.

Koretz said he was willing to introduce legislation to make some "minor tweaks" that would give employees more meal-break flexibility, but he contended the administration's goal was to make it easier for "some of the bad actors in all of these industries to cut out meal and rest breaks for their employees."

More so-called "video news releases" created by the government to promote government.

'But an administration spokesman, Rick Rice, said the video was "just a news release" and that television stations were "free to use it however they want. They're journalists so I am assuming they would do what journalists do, which is look at both sides of the story.'

I wonder if these so-called video news releases were clearly labeled with the government as the source as is required by law? From Rice's quote it sounds like these weren't properly labeled so that the viewing public was aware that the government itself created these "news releases".

In the case of Bush's Medicare "video news releases" promoting the prescription drug benefits, they weren't properly labeled so that the viewing public would be informed that the creative source of the "news reports" was the government itself, and were thus labeled in the GAO investigative report as illegal propaganda.

It will be interesting to see what results from this.

I've read several articles, and none of them address the specifics and how the law applies (or doesn't). Here's one that quotes the law, but no details on the labeling or distribution of the video.

LA Times, February 28, 2005
SACRAMENTO — 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. But unlike an actual news report, it does not provide views critical of the proposed changes. Democrats have denounced it as propaganda. Snippets aired on as many as 18 stations earlier this month, the administration said.
(snip)
The tape makes no mention that organized labor opposes the changes, or that workers would have a harder time suing employers over missed meal breaks.
The video "is clearly propaganda," said Assembly Labor Committee Chairman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). The tape is "completely one-sided."
He and others cited a law barring the Department of General Services — which made the tape at the behest of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency — from engaging in propaganda. "Radio and other communications facilities owned or operated by the state and subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of General Services shall not be used for political, sectarian, or propaganda purposes," the law says.
The administration released the video earlier this month, as it opened hearings on whether California should modify a meal break rule imposed during the administration of former Gov. Gray Davis. That rule gives workers the right to an extra hour of pay if employers don't give them half-hour breaks within the first five hours of a shift.

I've read several articles, and none of them address the specifics and how the law applies (or doesn't). Here's one that quotes the law, but no details on the labeling or distribution of the video.

Below is a link to the full GAO report on Bush's Medicare propaganda and the conclusions of the GAO general counsel.

Basically, the law says that if the government is going to produce these so-called "video news releases" it has to clearly label them so that the viewer is informed that the source of the information is the government.

By the definition of their own law, if the government doesn't inform the view as to the source of it's own 'video news release' it's considered propaganda and is a vioation of it's own law.

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, B-302710, May 19, 2004:

Conclusion
Although the VNR materials were labeled so that the television news stations could identify CMS as the source of the materials, part of the VNR materials--the story packages and lead-in anchor scripts--were targeted not only to the television news stations but also to the television viewing audience. Neither the story packages nor scripts identified HHS or CMS as the source to the targeted television audience, and the content of the news reports was attributed to individuals purporting to be reporters, but actually (were actors) hired by an HHS subcontractor. For these reasons, the use of appropriated funds for production and distribution of the story packages and suggested scripts violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition of the Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). Moreover, because CMS had no appropriation available to produce and distribute materials in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. CMS must report the Antideficiency Act violation to the Congress and the President. 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

By the definition of their own law, if the government doesn't inform the view as to the source of it's own 'video news release' it's considered propaganda and is a vioation of it's own law.

It looks like the Public Law they refer to in the Medicare case applies to dollars appropriated by the feds. So California wouldn't be subject to that, right? From your link:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s (CMS) use of appropriated funds to pay for the production and distribution of story packages that were not attributed to CMS violated the restriction on using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003).

It looks like the Public Law they refer to in the Medicare case applies to dollars appropriated by the feds. So California wouldn't be subject to that, right?

I'm not sure which law is being referenced in Schwarzenegger's case. IMO, it's always wrong for the government to promote pending legislation, escpecially if it's not clearly labeling itself as the creator/producer of the video in question.

I'll see if I can find out which law is being referenced and whether the ads were clearly labeled.

According to what I quoted from the Los Angeles Times in post #2, it looks like it would be Sec. 15254 of the California Government Code. If this is the argument, it seems kind of weak since it deals specifically with "radio and other communications facilities owned or operated by the state... "


CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 15250-15254

15250.  This part may be cited as the California State
Communications Law.

15251.  As used in this part, "department" means Department of
General Services.

15252.  The purpose of this part is to improve and coordinate the
use of radio and other communications facilities owned and operated
by the state, and to coordinate and cooperate with cities, counties,
and other political subdivisions thereof, in order to eliminate
duplications and interferences, to bring about economies which could
not otherwise be obtained.

15253.  This part shall apply only to those communications
facilities which are owned and operated by public agencies in
connection with official business of law enforcement services, fire
services, natural resources services, agricultural services, and
highway maintenance and control of the state or of cities, counties,
and other political subdivisions in this state. This part shall not
be construed as conferring upon the Department of General Services
control of programs or broadcasts intended for the general public.

15254.  Radio and other communications facilities owned or operated
by the state and subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of
General Services shall not be used for political, sectarian, or
propaganda purposes.  Such facilities shall not be used for the
purpose of broadcasts intended for the general public, except for
fire, flood, frost, storm, catastrophe, and such other warnings and
information for the protection of the public safety as the department
may prescribe.

If this is the argument, it seems kind of weak since it deals specifically with "radio and other communications facilities owned or operated by the state... "

Thanks for the info & the ping.

It does seem as if that is the passage being quoted and I agree that it doesn't really apply in this case as the letter of the law says, "owned or operated by the state".

In principle, I believe that no state agency should be producing and disseminating VNR unless the state agency is clearly identified as the producer/distributor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.