We respect the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy, the PR watchdog group, because we believe the people there are passionate about what they do.

But they can be incredibly silly, too.

On Thursday, they released a report on their pet issue, “fake TV news.” By the Center’s definition, a news story is “fake” if a TV station or network airs footage provided by another source — like a corporation or government agency.

In the PR business, we have routinely, for many years, distributed video footage (including both raw footage and packaged news) to TV stations in the same way that we have distributed news releases to newspapers and other publications.

And just as there always have been newspapers that publish press releases verbatim, so there have been TV outlets that air video in much the same way. It’s always been up to the media outlets to determine how best to use (or not use) this content in assembling their news coverage.

Now — in the wake of the hoo-haw about government-funded VNRs and their increased use by resource-strapped TV outlets — the Center for Media and Democracy is on a crusade to require TV stations to jump through all kinds of disclosure hoops before airing furnished video.

To promote its regulatory plan, the Center details the use of VNRs and B-roll by TV stations in its report. We encourage you to check it out. As we said the day we launched Media Orchard,

Not since the 19th century has the work of the news media been such a messy, politically charged topic, and never before has the public had access to so many sources of (often conflicting) information.

Public relations, for its part, is looked upon with more skepticism than ever — not so much because the practice of PR has fundamentally changed [it hasn't], but because consumers increasingly have the tools and sophistication to look behind the curtain and see how the worlds of PR and media interact. They’re finding out how the soup’s made, and realizing that a lot of fingers are trying to get into the pot every day.

The public — finally — has come to understand that the newspaper that plops on the front porch each morning is not some pure, objective “truth” on stone tablets. It is an imperfect product created through imperfect processes, where often the loudest voice — inside or outside the news organization — gets disproportionate attention. The media has always been a “squeaky wheel gets the grease” business, and PR firms squeak for a living.

See, listen: SQUEAK, SQUEAK! It’s what we do.

Personally, I’m glad the public is figuring out how all of this works.

And that’s still what we think. So educate away, guys. You can even put your anti-corporate spin on it.

But do you have to recommend all these regulations?

1. All provided and/or sponsored video footage be required to carry a continuous, frame-by-frame visual notification of its source.

2. All provided and/or sponsored audio material be required to include a verbal notification at its beginning and/or end, disclosing its source.

3. Broadcasters be required to place in their public file a monthly report on their use of provided and/or sponsored material.

4. U.S. government agencies funding and/or producing video or audio for news broadcast be required to make all such material public and archive it online.

What’s next — requiring newspapers to add footnotes?

We have our own suggested guidelines; forgive us if they don’t add sufficient red tape:

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?”

Technorati tags: Journalism, PR, Public Relations, Marketing