There are some blog rumblings raising alarms about the “cozy
relationships” that apparently exist between PR agents and the media (see below for links and excerpts).
As the stories go, PR people and journalists cut deals – over access to info and sources – that compromise objectivity and cloud otherwise
fine editorial judgment. This results in shoddy or at least suspect reportage.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so off base and
potentially damaging. After all, stories can have legs and reputations are at stake.
this viewpoint did some real digging, i.e. if they looked beyond the simple
storyline and actually spoke with real PR people and journalists, they would get
a different viewpoint.
how PR and journalists relate, I do not think of the words "cozy relationships." Adversarial? Often, unfortunately. Friendly? Sure, sometimes. There can be mutual admiration, mutual distrust,
and all things in-between.
do.
I think the reporters I have worked with would agree that
the most productive relationships are built on mutual respect and understanding.
To the extent that we – PR people – can be of help with
information that contributes to a good article – i.e., we don’t waste
journalists’ time, and they, ours – the relationships by and large work well.
information and access to sources. We
know all too well that even implying that the reporter’s viewpoint is for sale would surely spell the end of that
relationship.
We
understand that it just is not good business.
So,
no – slaying the PR journalist relationship, or end running it through
blog-based citizen journalism, is not the sure way to pristine news coverage.
Valleywag said, in A
Flack Resistant Journal: The Wall Street Journal‘s new
managing editor is bad news for the tech industry’s corporate
communications control freaks. Marcus Brauchli, who takes over
from Paul Steiger at the helm of the
powerful business newspaper, is a noted opponent of the media embargoes … the
younger generation of newspaper managers, Brauchli among them, are tired
of these cosy arrangements; and tired of being scooped if news leaks out to
the web before the embargo is lifted."
Emily Gould, co-editor of Gawker wrote in the NY Times op ed piece Coordinates of the Rich and Famous: "But the Internet, instead of relying on the expertise of an
incestuous network of reporters and managers and publicists and
photographers, gets its information from an army of anonymous
strangers. And no matter how long and hard celebrities work to get the
well-timed, utterly staged attention that’s going to be most profitable
for them, the Internet can circumvent those efforts in a heartbeat.
Celebrities like Mr. Kimmel who pretend that this new generation of
gossip is hurting their feelings are covering up their real concern —
that it’s hurting their bottom lines.
The effects of
Internet-based, user-generated gossip aren’t limited to the stars
themselves, of course. Publicists’ jobs are made more difficult when
clients blame them for not being able to manipulate coverage by
controlling access. "
I agree with Bob’s comments. While the perception is that the media and PR have cozy relationships, I think the number is very limited. I’m not naive to think it doesn’t exist, but not on an enormous scale. PR people have to create relationships, but so to do the media. It’s the slim grey area that gets all of the attention — as seems the case for much of the news.
As for Emily Gould’s WSJ column, I understand her points, but wonder where the line is between publicity and privacy. Yes, many celebrities use the media for attention, but the media uses them just as much to sell their magazines. What is public and what is private? When does a celeb turn around and start his or her own newsletter specifically written about the paparazzi stalking them? Turn around is fair play. Would Emily want her every move publicized on the Web? For that matter, would the rest of us?