Journalism and PR are not just about media releases
The promise of an environment in which all information released from organizations is tagged is that this information can be used and applied with fantastic efficiency and effectiveness. Relevant information isn’t hidden or require a follow-up call. Those journalists who can use information presented in these formats will write better articles faster. Organizations that present information in useful, tagged formats will get better uptake by journalists, and get their messages out more effectively.
Apart from this being a bit, alright a very big bit, far-fetched it also based on a disturbing, and I hope also far-fetched, view of PR and journalism and the interaction between them.
IT PR, and the media that covers the industry, are admittedly the low-end of the industry. I once had the editor of some niche IT magazine ring and criticise a media release written by one of my staff because he had to rewrite it before publishing it.
Ross Dawson's account of a Silicon Valley vision of the future of PR / media relations reminded me of that story. The focus seems to be on making it as easy as possible to simply cut and paste media releases and call it journalism.
In my view, the role of a media release is to get a journalist interested in your story. It should be the pitch not the final product. Between the pitch and the final story there should be some real work done by both the PR person and the journalist. And yes that includes follow-up calls and calls to other sources and a lot of testing of facts and so on.
Tagging might make that interaction more efficient, as Ross argues, but the final product that you and I read or watch will be diminished in quality - we would be reducing everything to the sorry state of much IT media. Seeing your media release appear in a publication unedited is fun for a PR person but its not good for any of us with an interest in quality journalism.
Increasingly, I am seeing newspapers and magazines run my news releases verbatim. I've even had editors say to me, "We'd love to do an article -- if you write it up."
As a PR person, I'm happy to get the press coverage for my clients. But as a former journalist, I find this new trend alarming.
One of the big advantages of getting a journalist to do a story about your company is that it's viewed by readers as sort of an endorsement of your company/product -- the theory being that journalists are supposedly objective observers and they didn't have to write about you.
An advertisement, on the other hand, is nothing special -- anyone can place one if they pay enough money.
This new trend of running press releases as stories will, ultimately, undermine both the media and public relations. If the trend continues, readers will come to realize that a story is less about research from an independent, objective journalist and more about having an enterprising PR agency. Journalism, thus, will become one giant advertisement.
Posted by: Mark Grabowski, Esq. | 01 October 2007 at 05:28 AM
It's a big call to say that "IT PR, and the media that covers the industry, are admittedly the low-end of the industry."
Who admits it?
Not this IT journalist and former IT PR!
IT journalism, like any other, has its fair share of trade hackery and press release recycling. It also has the rather unique position of being the only industry I can think of that scores a weekly slot in the AFR, Australian and SMAGE. And IT journalism has pioneered many online publishing models.
As for IT PR being at the low end, don't you guys act for Dell? My own IT PR experience included contributions to campaigns for little concerns like Microsoft, trying to get broadband on the agenda back in 2001. I suspect we may have made an impact!
Posted by: Simon Sharwood | 02 October 2007 at 09:10 AM
Thanks mark I agree with you. I find the trend is particularly true in trade type media which is really just looking for stuff to fill the bits between the ads
Thanks Simon all good points. I shouldn't have been so sweeping in my judgment of IT PR & media. I wonder whether it scores a weekly slot in those papers simply because of the industry's ad spend, I seem to recall the sections expanding and contracting when ad revenue goes up and down. If so the sections are simply regular 'special supplements', aren't they?
Posted by: Trevor Cook | 02 October 2007 at 09:45 AM
Trevor, the news values of the weekly IT supplements are pretty solid. Very little advertorial and when it appears it is marked as such.
The last stats I saw suggested than 300,000+ people work in IT&T. Seems to me an audience of that size justifies coverage.
There's also the fact that most businesses these days rely on IT to conduct their business. So these sections are also educational and potentially useful for the 800,000 or so employing businesses out there.
On the ad spend front, sure the sections exist because there is a big industry to buy ads.
But the same can be said of motoring sections, entertainment sections ... you name it.
For mine, IT at least has hard news that goes beyond products to make it a better read.
Posted by: Simon Sharwood | 02 October 2007 at 10:44 AM
Oh now you've gone and done it.. Phil Sim on his journo love-in site has written a nice hate piece on you now!
You forgot the golden rule, Journos can slag PR all day long but not the other way round!
How about a hate piece on Mr Sharwoods daily PR beat ups...
I thought not...
Posted by: IP | 02 October 2007 at 01:31 PM
IP: What beatups? If you are referring to the Epitome column I wrote for Media Connect, I resigned that a couple of weeks back.
Otherwise, at least I have the courage to link to my blog. Who are you?
Posted by: Simon Sharwood | 02 October 2007 at 01:41 PM
No sorry perhaps that wasn't clear. On your blog SS you certainly are known for pointing out PR's flaws quite often (unless you don't think you do?), and thats great, thats your right, carry on...
I just find it ironic that the moment a PR person dares to question something about journos it inspires a huge 'how dare they' outrage piece...
Posted by: IP | 02 October 2007 at 02:24 PM
IP, I sure do have a go at PR on my blog.
I find it bizarre that PR is so often crude and slapdash. FWIW, the blog has been pretty successful - it is changing behaviour and producing results for PRs and for me.
But I do not think that my initial post in this threat constitutes an "'how dare they' outrage piece"
I thought it was a pretty sweeping statement to call the whole IT PR and media community as second rate and made that call. I could go on and on about why the statement is wrong, but Trevor has recanted so I'll hold fire.
If a PR out there has the guts to blog about journos, I'd love to read it! Sunshine is, as always, the best disinfectant.
Thanks for reading my blog, IP, by the way. Do you have one we could read?
Posted by: Simon Sharwood | 02 October 2007 at 02:29 PM
No I don't have a blog, which is probably for the best given my not explaining myself again.. It was never you I was accusing of the 'how dare they' piece. It was Phil Sim.. I guess it confused the issue as you had posted comment here (constructively I might add)
I was just observing on what I saw as double standards.
I am neither a PR nor a Journo but I would suggest that it would be hard for a PR to do a worts and all blog without causing negative feelings to their firm or clients.
Perhaps a Fake Steve Jobs style blog could be good though. I sense you Simon welcome the engagement.
Posted by: IP | 02 October 2007 at 03:13 PM
Trevor,
The trend I'm noting is the increasing frequency with which PR consultants are advising their clients not to make themselves available for scrutiny via any means other than their press releases.
PR firms are also devoting conspicuous amounts of energy into finding ways for their clients to say "no comment" without actually having those words appear in print.
This usually results in a comment that transparently adds nothing to the conversation
I now hear hundreds of increasingly ridiculous excuses as to why companies won't comment on any topic.
The most absurd so far: "it's against our policy to comment on operational matters."
Such statements are clearly at odds with all the other public relations activities they pursue - after all what isn't discussion of an operational matter?
You also hear statements like this a lot:
"Executive X or Y is not authorised to say anything that is not already in the press release".
These phrases are clearly designed to stop any direct media scrutiny.
Because most of these groups they're private entities the best you can do is accuse them of being high-handed; many of them are so large the reader is not served by ignoring their press releases, no matter how tempting, because they are part of ongoing daily the journal of record.
The most disturbing thing is that the same practices are starting to creep into the government sector. Reminding such media advisors just whose money their minister or department is spending and who we write for usually gets some results here, but there's not a lot you can do with private entities unless you have a dynamite source or document that will bring them out of their cubby holes to respond. Even then they sometimes won't – sometimes understandably - and it's not always serving the reader to allow a story to go live without some input from.
So, Trevor, I think it might be time you started scrutinising the current relationship between Journalists and PR a little more closely to find out who is actually putting up the barrier to this "real work done by both the PR person and the journalist" which is supposed to produce good journalism.
In my view there's been a shift in the climate of openness between companies and the press in the last 3 to 4 years and I can't put my finger on why.
I would be interested to hear if anyone else has also noted it.
AJC
Posted by: AJC | 02 October 2007 at 05:23 PM
Thanks Andrew - In my experience the approach you outline (and I hope its not growing but I wouldn't be surprised) most often results from a conspiracy of timidity and mediocrity between second rate PR people and second rate managers. These people operate on the basis that the greatest achievement is survival (getting through another day and getting that bonus etc)and that the best strategy to secure survival is to avoid any risk at all. It might be nice for them but its ultimately self-defeating. I don't advocate that we have to do whatever suits the journo at any particular time but that overall the default should be openness not secrecy. A good person knows that the real story is always the coverup and will do everything to avoid that situation. One day it will come out and the repercussions of trying to hide things will be much greater than any small negatives from a continuous disclosure approach. Most of my work is in issues management and the starting point is always that we have to make our case - not just hope that it will go away. In most cases I would advise clients to comment - I think the no comment, not available for comment, we don't comment on those issues style of response is in its way just as damning in the minds of the reader / viewer.
On the other hand, I think journalists give up too easily too often. Maybe this is due to cutbacks in resources and so on. But many of our journalists in this country seem to spend a lot more of their time doing comment pieces rather than the shoeleather work of getting a story.
The role of a good PR person is to help the client put their case effectively to advise the client to retreat from battle all the time is an abrogation of our professional responsibilities IMHO.
Posted by: Trevor Cook | 03 October 2007 at 09:32 AM
Jargonmaster Simon, I think you already know of one PR type who regularly blogs about inept journos:
http://www.prdisasters.com/?p=346
and
http://www.prdisasters.com/?p=327
and
http://www.prdisasters.com/?p=259
and
http://www.prdisasters.com/?p=227
and
http://www.prdisasters.com/?p=55
Posted by: Gerry McCusker | 05 October 2007 at 12:45 PM