Month: April 2004

Alice Marshall of Presto Vivace Inc, who kindly commented on the Karen Ryan story, has a technology PR blog called technoflak.

 

UK firm, Rainier PR has launched a new weblog which summarises daily UK technology news and opinions for their clients.

It’s good to see PR firms embracing the publishing medium.

Timing is everything.  While the UK’s anti-spin event took place yesterday, the case of Karen Ryan and the Medicare VNR gave us a great illustration of why we need to stop and take stock of the intersection of Public Relations and the Media.

For those of you not familiar with the story, Karen Ryan is a “Public Relations” practitioner who provides services from media training, to crisis management and message development. 

She also has a lucrative sideline in Video News Releases where she pretends (convincingly it seems) that she’s a news reporter and recites whatever company line is being promoted.  That’s fine until TV stations started to air these “reports” as legitimate news.

Now you see this is where my problem starts.  I understand that many practitioners may not agree with me on this issue and that’s the beauty of opinions, we can all have our own.

From a PR point of view, I don’t like deception.  I don’t like trying to pull a fast one and blurring the lines for my audience.  If something is an infomercial, that’s how it should be presented.  I firmly believe that in the long run, honesty is the best policy. I know some of you are shaking your heads but that’s my view. That’s my belief and I am sticking to it.

Karen has published a rebuttal of the media outrage of her role in the VNR episode.  However, while she makes a valid point that she is only part of this issue, she doesn’t address the actual VNR or the ethical debate.  Instead she discussses the performance of the journalists who covered the story.

In some ways I can see Karen’s point of view.  There are two villans in this piece.  The PR and marketing people who commissioned the piece and the TV stations who aired it as “news”.

I think it is a disgrace that this happened.  You see it’s not just the PR folks, the television media are clearly at fault here.  They have betrayed their audience.

At the same time, I can’t buy Karen’s defence that she’s only a simple pawn here.  She purports to be a “Public Relations” professional and she claims that:

“It’s not fair to call her an actress, as some accounts did, because “an actress is someone that’s playing someone they’re not.”

But you see, Karen was purporting to be something she wasn’t.  She didn’t say: “Hi Karen Ryan here, a paid for PR talking head” – nope, she portrayed herself as a reporter. Which she isn’t.

Furthermore, if she is a PR professional, she should have a basic grasp of the rules.

Jay Rosen writes:

“Crying, “but, I’m a public relations pro, not some horrible person” doesn’t help her much, because if Karen Ryan belonged to a real profession, responsible members of that fraternity would denounce her fakery, and renounce the practice of sticking simulated reporters into video clips so as to maximize the illusion of independent journalism and serious fact-finding. A real profession would be criticizing the government for abusing the practice of public relations, instead of letting the press do it all. Ryan is a professional only in the narrowest sense: she gets paid to do her thing, and she’s apparently good at it.”

I agree with him.  I am not a fan of this practice and I cannot believe that TV stations air these segments as news. That’s horrendous news for all of us.

Our job is to communicate effectively on behalf of our clients and our employers.  Some of us may believe that “infomercials” are the way to go – that’s their privelege. Personally, I think we should stick to our knitting and avoid the ethical quagmire of pretending to be journalists when in fact you are a Public Relations practitioner – why be embarrased?  Why pretend to be something you’re not?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.  Am I alone in thinking this affects PR credibility?

Footnote:

Read Colin McKay’s thoughts on this matter (he includes some useful VNR links)

Karen Ryan’s rebuttal published on Television Week.

Jay Rosen’s take at Press Think.

Karen’s entry on Disinfopedia.

David Hawpe at the Louisville Courier Journal on the issue.

GNN Spin of the Week.

The New York Times on Faux Journalism.

There is an air of optimism pervading the technology business.  This growing confidence has been bolstered by recent good results from the big players such as Intel and IDC yesterday forecast 5% growth in IT spending.

So when will this new found momentum affect the technology media? Not for a while it seems.  The technology magazines were hit hard by the downturn and their masssive staff expansions required savage job cuts and mayhem.  As a result I think magazine management are going to be very slow to rebuild trade magazines until the business is actually booming, which for the PR business translates into stressed, over worked journalists.

Mark Glaser at the Online Journalism Review has a very insightful interview with Jai Singh, founding editor at CNET’s News.com – a bellweather of the pre- and post-Internet boom.

In response to a question on the return of the technology business, Singh comments:

“Definitely, from a year ago and two years ago and three years ago. It appears to be getting better. The bosses haven’t given me carte blanche and said, “Go, hire away!”

He also has some interesting and honest views on blogs:

“We literally have a daily discussion on this topic. We have a lot of top people writing columns and perspectives but we know that the bulk of our readership still comes to us for the news. In one sense, my editor for opinions, Charles Cooper, writes a column that’s sort of a blog, and we have this “Your Take” feature now, whereby readers can respond to his column, but it is not a two-way thing. I think with news the question is which blogger do you really trust. There are so many of them. It seems to me like it’s a pretty incestuous thing going on. One journalist points to another journalist’s blog and other bloggers point to other people’s blogs, and you somehow think that this is the most popular thing. But is it credible? I don’t know.”

The full interview is here and is definetely worth a read.

Patrick Weever’s campaign, which is built around his anti-spin website, aims to address the dual roles and relationships of journalists and PR practitioners in the delivery of news and opinions.

Today in the UK, journalists and PR practitioners will come together to discuss wide ranging issues and hopefully build consensus around better practices moving forward.  Will the initiative be successful? 

Well if it makes people think about the thorny subject of how our professions work together and includes discussion on  the implications of these relationships on organizations and the general public that could be considered a success.

If it descends into finger pointing and recrimination I believe it will have failed.

Footnote:

Patrick Weever has posted an essay online outlining the summit (though it still seems to me to be pointing fingers)

Philippe Borremans over at Phil’s Place has been covering this initiative from the start.

Constantin Basturea has an excellent summary post on the summit