Is it VIAble?

Viability Results

Lesson 3:5

So, what did you think? Were both examples on the previous page VIAble? How so?

Here's our take on each:

Example 1 - Is Your Child Constantly Sick?

VNR-Is Your Child Constantly Sick-- - PR Watch.mp4

To assess VIAbility, let's look at what the main point of this story is:

A two minute blood test that can help diagnose allergies in children, and help prevent further complications later in life.

Sounds pretty good -- however, the piece talks about a specific test -- Immunocap (sp?), and a specific lab that processes the test -- Quest Diagnostics without referencing other tests that children can take. Nor does it tell us how the test works. So, no real verification here.

Next, how independent & accountable is this outlet? We see that the story has run on an ABC affiliate news broadcast--which tells us that its a major news outlet, which will stand behind the story. A viewer could also reach out to the station if they felt something was misstated in the story. The only thing missing is an actual reporter. While we do see the ANCHOR (the woman at the top and the end of the story) introducing it, the reporter of the story is never identified, which is troubling.

Here's the scoop on this piece:

KABC-7 in Los Angeles aired that two-minute news segment on a blood test that can help diagnose allergies in children. What the station didn't tell its viewers was that the entire story was built from a video news release (VNR) funded by Quest Diagnostics, which runs thousands of lab centers across the United States where people go to have such tests done. They story mentions Quest and the Immunocap test kit. In adapting the story, producers at KABC-7 edited the VNR slightly for length and rearranged the order of clips and soundbites. To help disguise the VNR as a product of their station, KABC-7 swapped the male voice-over of the MutliVu publicist, using an un-identified female, and replaced all text and graphic displays with network-branded substitutes.

Other things to look out for in this story:

The report does not provide any details about the doctor’s affiliation or even his hometown.
No last name or hometown given for the patient and her mother
No explanation why the source was not identified.
No sources, written or human, other than the doctor.

Example 2 - Less (Time) Is More

Assess the VIAbility of this piece of content.

Less (Time) Is More - The Washington Post.pdf

This is a pretty "soft" piece, which discusses vacation options, and you may have read this piece and thought "this doesn't sound like a piece of journalism, but a promotional piece for going on vacation in Maryland". Which is exactly what it is. Even though it comes from the Washington Post, and if you went to the link provided above, you'd see that there are only small cues that would point you in the direction of seeing that it comes not from the Post's newsroom, but it's "Brand Studio" -- a separate division of the Post that deals exclusively with creating promotional content that borrows from some of the credibility of the Washington Post's name.

This is what is known as "Sponsored Content", meaning that a sponsor pays for and has oversight of, specific pieces of media content. Think of it like a commercial, but that isn't as blatant as an ad. While personally, I haven't seen much of an issue with sponsored content in notable publications, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, it's harder to spot on Social Media, where everything tends to look the same, such as in the case of these two Facebook posts.

Could you tell the difference between them?

In the case of the Washington Post's brand studio piece, while there aren't many claims that need to be verified -- except that the place that they are featuring is a nice one -- the lack of an author, and the labeling at the top saying it comes from the Brand Studio, means that it lacks independence and accountability.

You can apply this sort of analysis to pieces of media beyond news content, such as other pieces of promotion, like online reviews. While they aren't news content per se, they do qualify as actionable information, that you use in order to make decisions. When viewing, ask yourself: Do certain reviewers of products seem to only leave overly favorable reviews on different products? Do the reviews include images or other forms of verification? See if there are other places in which you can apply this new skill.