 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
PR Fuel: Public's Perception of PR-Media Relationship Has BlurredThe public relations industry and the media have always had a curious relationship. PR people will tell you that the media can't do its job without them. Media folk, meanwhile, will suggest that PR people are nothing more than mouthpieces for people who would talk to them if PR people didn't exist. On the surface, both are correct.As technology has improved and expanded our access to both the media and PR industries, we've seen a shift in how the two beasts interact in the wild. The rise of twenty-four hour cable news and radio stations, the Internet and all that's come in its wake - and a consumer more in tune with the news cycle - has created a new world order in the media and public relations. Unfortunately, as we progress, we still see the lines blurred between what constitutes promotion and what constitutes unbiased news reporting. More evidence concerning my last statement emerged last week when it was revealed that Armstrong Williams, billed as a conservative commentator, accepted $240,000 from the U.S. Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act ("NCLB") on his syndicated television show. Public relations firm Ketchum, a unit of Omnicom Group, brokered the deal. The incident has raised a number of questions, including whether it's appropriate for the government to use tax dollars to promote policy in the media, whether Williams should have disclosed the relationship to his audience, and whether Ketchum crossed the line. The backlash towards Williams thus far indicates that people are not happy about the government shelling out almost a quarter of a million dollars to promote policy. Democrats and Republicans have expressed unhappiness about the deal, and the White House has suggested that it's none too happy about what has occurred. Of course, it's debatable as to whether anyone in the government is being truthful here. More importantly, the public backlash towards the Williams-Ketchum deal has shown that the general public has a fear of the insidious form that public relations is often practiced in. If the government and our politicians are constantly spinning us, can we believe them? And if PR firms act as the government's lackey, can we trust them? Williams, for his part, has been quick to admit that he acted improperly in not disclosing the paid relationship. His willingness to apologize has, however, been tempered by his curious suggestion of naivete to how public relations, the media and Washington work. This is, after all, a man who until a few days wrote a syndicated newspaper column and was often called on by the media to offer a conservative view of issues and events. Williams' apology falls on deaf ears, and his childlike admission of naivete should be taken with a rather large grain of salt. As a columnist and pundit with strong ties to one political party, Williams has been nothing more than a shill for years, no different than any of the people who have hosted or appeared on the soon-to-be-defunct CNN show "Crossfire." As for Ketchum, this is not the first time the firm has been accused of acting inappropriately. Last year, it surfaced that the company had been distributing video news reports ("VNRs") to media outlets at the behest of the Bush Administration. These VNRs were aimed to appear as if they were real news reports, and Ketchum went so far as to use a former reporter in the clips. Television stations around the country aired reports that consumers thought were news but were nothing more than propaganda. The Public Relations Society of America, often quiet in times of turmoil, has spoken up against the Williams-Ketchum alliance. "As public relations professionals, we are disheartened by this type of tactic," Judith T. Phair, president and chief executive officer of the group for this year, said in a statement yesterday. "Any paid endorsement that is not fully disclosed as such and is presented as objective news coverage," Phair said, "[is a violation of the group's code of ethics,] which requires that public relations professionals engage in open, honest communications and fully disclose sponsors or financial interests involved in any paid communications activities." In an ironic twist, PR firms have found themselves on the defensive in the wake of the Armstrong-Ketchum revelation. Taking an offensive tact, however, the PR industry has begun to fight back, not willing to be painted with a black-eye by one firm's questionable actions. "[The fact Mr. Williams was paid to disseminate positive assessments of the law] destroys a lot of the credibility a lot of good people have built [in the PR industry]," Al Golin, chairman of GolinHarris, told The New York Times. "You have to be smart enough to say no to a client," Golin said, or say that something "is a stupid idea, even if it comes from the client. You may keep the client happy by saying yes all the time, but it's very short-sighted." Golin's remarks should hit home for PR people, most of whom struggle to keep clients happy, as many clients mistake advertising for PR and have little understanding of what PR really constitutes. Keep Golin's comments handy the next time a client has a request or idea that is, for lack of a better term, blatantly stupid. With the media's credibility nearing an all-time low, the credibility of the PR industry is not far behind. Those of us on the inside understand the delicate balance of the PR-media relationship, but the vast majority of the population sees PR and media operating in tandem, not independently. Firms like Ketchum, and quasi-journalists like Armstrong Williams, do nothing but help support the latter view. Sooner or later, the other shoe will drop, and both the media and the PR industry will have to answer for their sins. The digital printing press will see to that, even if someone in the mainstream media is unwilling to do so. ___ Correction: Stunningly, in last week's newsletter, I suggested that "typhoon relief" would be a hot media issue this year. As we all know, and, as it was pointed out to me by a number of readers, it was a tsunami, not typhoon, that devastated Southeast Asia last month. An honest mistake on my part, but an unacceptable mistake nonetheless. Use this as an example of why it's important to proofread every communication, be it with the media, or a client. ___ Update: In the last PR Fuel newsletter of 2004, I laid out my own personal PR goals for 2005. (In addition to my editorial and analytical duties at FindProfit.com and our sister companies, I'm also in charge of PR.) January, thus far, has been very good, and in the first two weeks, I already hit my monthly goals by landing a feature story in The New York Post, quotes in the Los Angeles Times and eWeek, a number of blog mentions and links, and a radio appearance for one of our editors. (I'm keeping my fingers crossed on a tentatively-scheduled television appearance as well.) As this is the first time that I've undertaken a full-blown PR campaign in a number of years, I'm extremely happy with the initial results. At the same time, I've been reminded of how difficult doing this job on a daily basis is and how much pressure there is to perform, especially in light of initial success. PR only constitutes about a quarter of my responsibilities, but I've found myself spending countless hours "after the closing bell" trying to find ways to promote my company. As a friend recently said to me, "PR never sleeps." ___ Visit the PR Fuel website at http://www.prfuel.com for daily PR industry news and commentary.
|
 Subscribe and receive targeted press release announcements. Choose from several categories. Sign up today!  Media Searches Reference Tools Journalism Sites Public Relations PR Bookstore Organizations/Assns. Careers |