On TV, Antipiracy Coverage May Include a Disclosure

As television networks have covered Internet companies’ positions against antipiracy legislation before Congress this week, they have had to consider whether to disclose the positions of their parent companies — virtually all of which have campaigned in favor of it.

Such disclosures are always sensitive inside newsrooms, and especially so in this case, because conspiracy theories have taken root online about why journalists at TV networks like NBC, ABC and CBS gave so little coverage to the proposed laws in December and in early January, when their parent companies had helped to convince lawmakers to support the legislation.

Network executives privately attributed the dearth of coverage to the arcane, hard-to-illustrate nature of the legislation, colloquially known as SOPA, not to corporate interests. All the networks were paying attention by Wednesday, though, when Wikipedia and a fleet of other Web sites orchestrated an online protest against the legislation.

All three of the network morning news shows mentioned the protest, but during their initial reports none disclosed the point of view of their parent companies. NBC’s “Today” show, however, did make a point of disclosing it during a conversation with Marissa Mayer, a Google vice president.

After she explained Google’s opposition to the legislation, the co-anchor Matt Lauer noted that Comcast, the parent of NBC, “is in favor of that legislation, saying it’s imperative to protecting content — copyrighted content — and avoiding piracy.”

He asked, “So where is this going in your opinion?”

“We are very much worried about piracy,” Ms. Mayer answered. “That said, we think there are better, smarter, more targeted ways to address rogue foreign Web sites than asking for broad censorship.”

When asked if ABC’s “Good Morning America” or other programs would add a disclosure going forward, an ABC News spokesman said, “We will disclose Disney’s support for the bill. We just added a line to an online story to that effect.”

CBS News declined to comment. An article on CBSNews.com on Wednesday stated, “CBS Corporation, which owns CBSNews.com, is a member of the Copyright Alliance — an industry group representing content producers that supports SOPA and PIPA.”

CNN, which covered SOPA earlier than other television news outlets, has been relatively diligent about disclosing that its parent, Time Warner, supports the legislation.

At the business news network CNBC, owned by Comcast, Wednesday’s conversations about the issue on the morning programs “Squawk Box” and “Squawk on the Street” lacked disclosures, spurring the network’s managing editor Nick Dunn to send a memo to producers.

“As discussed numerous times – we should disclose NBC’s position in SOPA/PIPA when doing story. Please make sure you do so,” he wrote. The disclosure was included on the network’s afternoon program “Power Lunch.”

Another network owned by Comcast, MSNBC, also lacked such disclosures until Wednesday afternoon.

“America’s Newsroom,” a morning newscast on the Fox News Channel, did not mention the fact that its parent News Corporation supports the legislation on Wednesday, nor the fact that the company’s chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, has been posting to Twitter about the issue. The liberal Fox watchdog Media Matters asserted that Fox “reported the absurd spin from its parent company on SOPA without noting their parent company’s support for the bill.”

Other programs on Fox have made clear where its parent stands. Shepard Smith, the afternoon and evening anchor, said on Tuesday during an explanation of SOPA, “Important to note here, among the supporters is our boss, Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and C.E.O. of the News Corporation, which is the parent company of this network.” Megyn Kelly, another afternoon anchor, made a similar statement on Wednesday.

Time for a disclosure of our own: The New York Times Company has not taken a corporate position on the proposed antipiracy legislation. The editorial board of The New York Times has stated that the House version of the bill is too broad and “could stymie legitimate speech.”