Beginning with the Armstrong Williams fiasco earlier this year, much attention has been given to the Bush Administration's alleged manipulation of the news media.

The controversy recently extended to the use of video news releases (VNRs) -- pre-packaged television news stories, generally created by PR firms, for use by broadcast media outlets. The Bush Administration has defended the practice, but many editorial pages, such as that of USA Today, have suggested that they are unethical and should be banned.

This is silly. There's a fundamental difference between a "payola" case like that of Armstrong Williams and the PR tactic of VNRs. Williams spoke directly to a large media audience, and by not acknowledging that he was paid for his endorsement of "No Child Left Behind," he betrayed his audience and his profession.

The VNR, on the other hand, is no different from any other press release. It is given to the news media, who can use it, alter it, or not use it as they see fit. I've sent out many of them in my career; some have gotten great pickup -- airing on dozens of television stations -- and some have never seen the light of day. It was up to the news judgment of the individual media outlet whether and how they used the release.

If you are interested in learning more about VNRs, one Dallas company that does a nice job with them is VNR-1. Here's one of their case studies.

So why all the hubbub over VNRs? Here's my five-cent analysis of the situation:

1. Large segments of the U.S. media are embarrassed by their coverage of the run-up to the Iraq conflict. They took what they were told about the existence of weapons of mass destruction at face value, rather than doing their own reporting. The famous mea culpa of The New York Times reflects the feelings on news desks nationwide. This has made segments of the media more sensitive to manipulation by the Bush Administration.

2. With the explosion of television news outlets, and particularly 24-hour cable channels, the demand for packaged video content has increased dramatically. As a result, the media standards for when, where and how VNRs are aired have relaxed considerably.

These are media industry issues, not PR industry issues. And because of the First Amendment, VNRs will never be banned.

Instead, television news directors should simply tell their staffs the following:

1. "If you don't think a VNR is newsworthy, don't air it."

2. "If the VNR is accurate and contains information that will benefit your viewers, do air it."

3. "If you want to use video or audio content from a VNR as raw material for creating a news story with an entirely different angle, you can do that, too. You control what goes out over the air, remember?"

Personally, when I make and distribute a VNR, I expect the media to think carefully about what information their audience should receive and in what context. That's their job. And, despite the recent controversy, the media generally does this very well.

For this reason, I don't send out VNRs willy-nilly. I only send them out when I believe the VNR is a real story; if the VNR is unprofessional or inaccurate, it typically won't get airtime, even in today's looser environment.