This is at heart a GQ, as no particular show is mentioned, and it is not open to any opinion, just fact.
Why do News programs feel a need to show a picture of a TV (with the video footage ‘playing’ inside it) when showing a recording that is not their own? I see it a lot with Political Commercials, and I’ve seen it a lot on MSNBC.
To show that it is a recording that is not their own. Keeps down any possible confusion from people tuning in and not knowing the set-up, as well as all those in the audience who are confused easily.
Those in the audience who are confused easily are commonly referred to as “viewers.”
It’s kind of like newspapers and magazines putting a big box around advertisements that could be mistaken for news content. They want to make the distinction clear.
In the case of TV news, they want to make it absolutely clear that “we’re talking about this thing that was shown on TV previously, not actually showing it. Got it?”
We do it that way because we don’t necessarily have permission to air the footage in question.
The subtext is “We asked for this footage directly, but the people who own it said we couldn’t have it, so here we are airing it anyway under ‘fair use’ laws and attributing it to that other station which owns the footage and hopefully we’re not going to be sued.”
At least, that’s why I’ve aired footage like that in the past…
Is this strictly an American thing? I’ve never seen it.
Captions saying “Amateur video” or “Courtesy of Channel 7”, yes. A picture of a TV? No.
Some of them do it to look “cute”, or so that the audience isn’t “confused” (as noted above—American TV viewers aren’t all that smart, as evidenced by all the dumb “reality” shows on nowadays).
Yes, there are newsbroadcasts here showing a picture of a TV in the sceen, with the video playing within the “frame”.
I have never seen this. Or maybe I just never noticed. Can someone show a screenshot or clip of what the OP is describing?
Footage aired from another network, for example CBS airing highlight clips of an NBC football game, would have a courtesy CG (“COURTESY NBC”). It would NEVER be inside a box. I think the OP is talking about something different.
Generally, the box (a TV set frame) is used to show paid content (advertising, most likely) that is airing out of context. That is, a broadcaster may be showing a clip because it is the subject of a news story and wants to make it clear that it is NOT a spot that has been bought and paid for.
In my experience, permission to air clips like this is never requested or refused. It is simply used as “fair use” because it has legitimate informational value. And even if it was requested and permission granted, clips like this would appear in the box anyway if that was the secondary broadcaster’s typical way of displaying such clips.
Au contraire, permission is often refused, especially for exclusive news footage.
(Say, a government leader’s house being searched by police officers, and one station has video because a police officer tipped off a reporter who frequently bribes him. Not that that ever happens 
)
If there’s no way to get permission to use the other station’s footage, I’ll put it up in a box and make sure it’s clearly identified. Or better yet, I’ll have the reporter do a standup in front of a television playing the footage.
Courtesy Keys are used all the time, but it’s always because we have indeed paid for the item, or we’ve got a gentleman’s agreement. But we have been given permission to use the video.
Could they be doing it for political ads to meet the equal time rule? By clearly showing it in a way that it couldn’t be confused with an actual ad, it doesn’t count as one.
The fact that the ad is being aired as the subject of a story clearly indicates that it is not a paid advertisement, but some sort of identification of the clip (e.g. “Political Ad” keyed onto the screen) would customarily be used and expected. By going further and putting the ad inside of a TV set graphic the point is clearly made at a glance (say, to someone who happens to glance a t a TV that has the sound down in a bar) that the ad is the current topic of discussion and is not airing as an actual paid advertisement.
Barbarian– Of course permission would be refused if someone asked to use exclusive news video, but why would anyone want to use a competitor’s exclusive video? You have to get your own! But political ads and so forth are different.
Here’s an example (but what I’m talking about here is stuff that probably would not be put in a “TV set box”, so this is therefore a hijack!): Station XYZ wouldn’t ask to use station PDQ’s exclusive video of a local pot bust because it’s not theirs to use. But if a brouhaha developed over the fact that station PDQ may have trespassed on private property to get the video, then that becomes a story in itself and the video that PDQ aired becomes fair game for other news organizations to use-- no permission asked for or needed.
Similarly, if you have an “exclusive video” such as the video of the Virginia Tech rampage murderer that the guy sent to NBC before his spree, then no one has to ask you (NBC, in this case) for permission to use it because it’s available for “fair use” by news organizations who are reporting the story that the killer sent a video to a TV network. Consequently, NBC is not in any position to refuse the use of the video and wouldn’t even try (and didn’t, I would guess).
If you are asking people for video that you could be using under “fair use” rules than you are wasting your breath. You can use it regardless of what the owners of the video say. On the other hand, if you are requesting video from competitors that is NOT available under “fair use” then I would have to ask… why do you want to use someone else’s video? Go shoot your own!
Sometimes getting your own video is not an option.
Back when I was working in Vancouver, one station (and only one station) got exclusive video of police searching the premier’s house.
HUGE story. Massive. And nobody else in the province heard a whisper of this event – no print, no radio, no other tv station – until hours after the fact.
Since the station that owned the footage wasn’t going to give up their exclusive video, every other station in the province aired the video in a ‘box’ while reporters talked the premier’s house being searched.