Morning:
13°c
We journalists generally see ourselves as superior to PRs. In our view, we are seekers after truth and they are unhelpful gatekeepers to the truth. We are convinced that we hold the moral high ground while PRs scramble around in the muddy foothills waving at us in order to gain our attention and occasionally, with due condescension, we grant them a hearing.
The caricature continues. We have integrity, they do not. We serve the public, they fool the public. We are transparent, they are covert. Though they strive to set the news agenda, we are clever enough to see through their stratagems and expose them as spinners and sinners.
PRs, needless to say, see it all very differently, especially over the claim to transparency. They are upfront. Everyone knows who they work for - be it government, business, institution, charity or individual - so their agenda is obvious. But journalists who proclaim veracity as their watchword conceal their own agendas behind a fake claim to objectivity.
It was a point rammed home last week by Lord (Tim) Bell, the veteran PR who runs Chime Communications, in a Media Standards Trust debate at Westminster University in which he was arguing against the motion, "The growth of PR is threatening the integrity of the press". What press integrity, he asked?
It proved an uphill battle after that, as I can testify because I was seconding the motion proposed by investigative journalist Nick Davies, author of the challenging book, Flat Earth News, in which he accuses newspapers of tamely accepting stories emanating from public relations initiatives.
In retrospect, the hole in our argument - which we lost by an embarrassing margin of almost three to one - was rather obvious. PR can hardly be blamed for taking advantage of journalists who are happy to be spoon-fed stories. By coincidence, I was then sent a illuminating piece of evidence that confirms just how successful PR organisations have become at placing their material in the media.
Metrica, a media analysis and evaluation company that claims to provide data "which adds value at every stage of the PR lifecycle", has produced a report based on its clients' experiences in 2007 that spotlights the prevalence of PRs' work.
It reveals that, despite an increasingly fractured media landscape, PR organisations are managing to get their messages across very well indeed. For example, on average every month, those organisations reached 35% of Britain's adult population 11 times. That is some hit rate, and the repetition is very important indeed.
When you also realise that only 8% of the coverage was classified as unfavourable, it is clear that the PR industry - for that is what it is - is flourishing. Looking closer at the evidence shows that red-top tabloids and general interest magazines are much more likely to carry favourable "key messages". No wonder Metrica's report has been greeted so enthusiastically within the PR industry.
Colin Farrington, director-general of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) saw it as confirmation that PRs were doing their jobs well. Similarly, Barry Leggetter, executivive director of the Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication believed it illustrated PR companies innovative work.
PR practitioners were also delighted. Lisa White, director of communications for 11 Million, the organisation led by the Children's Commissioner for England, thought it fantastic that her organisation was picked out as a notable performer. The message was getting across.
But what about the effect on journalism? Was PR success a sign of poor reporting? Susannah Finn, head of PR at Yell, the international directories business, said: "Good PRs tread a fine line between delivering information while also satisfying the journalist's requirement for real news. We may see the occasional case of lazy journalism but for the most part the press is simply working under the pressure of too little time." The CIPR's Farrington agreed: "I share the view that people pressed to deal with a 24-hour news environment can be overwhelmed with the need to provide stories. But that raises ethical questions for journalists and PRs. It's fair to say that PRs trying to develop the reputation of a product or a body wouldn't survive if they did not have good standards."
Finally, and very reasonably, you might well ask how I came by the Metrica research.
The answer, of course, is that I was contacted by an executive at the company eager to publicise its latest piece of work. Was I therefore a willing tool of PR spiel? Or was it simply a case of the normal, everyday relationship between PR and journalist that ensures the free flow of information in the public interest?
However much I may nod in agreement with fellow journalists who say they despise PR and all its works, I cannot deny that it is part of our media culture. Perhaps that's why an awful lot of journalists switch sides to build up very successful PR businesses.
Then again, is that pejorative analogy, about there being "sides", a further reminder of my wish to see journalism as a superior institution?
Reader views (2)
News has been 'outsourced'. In the past many (very expensive hacks) were responsible for producing a small amount of copy. Media outlets bore the brunt of those costs. Now, smaller newsrooms produce a great deal. The media outlets have lowered their cost bases. They can do this because the news production has been outsourced to individual companies and their PR teams. They now foot the bill.
I'd like to add that I don't think there's anything wrong with distributing PR that pushes your side of the story. It's just putting your best foot forward. We all do it, every day. You don't go to a job interview in your scruffy jeans. You wear your best suit. It's the interviewer's job to judge you. Journalists have become judges of different points of view put forward by PR people.
Lastly, I think newspapers have benefitted from PR. They are better than they used to be. Have you read papers from the pre-PR age? They're dreadful. Very, very dull indeed.
- James Staunton - A London Pr, LONDON
Hi Roy, an additional interesting thought is that it was of course the respectful working partnership between PR and journalism which led to this article. The PR profession is one growing in strength and stature while journalism, already firmly established and respected, is dealing with how to apply its rules and ethics in a media landscape which is increasingly digital and diversified. Whatever ones stance, it is a fact that by working together these two professions keep the world both informed and entertained - although to who's benefit though clearly remains in debate!
Anyone interested in seeing Metrica's full report can find it on the company's website.
- Richard Bagnall, London, UK
