Public Relations
Media relations is a key component of public relations, but it is an undertaking that traditionally has been fraught with tensions and mishaps on both sides of the equation. Journalists do not trust public relations practitioners; public relations practitioners do not trust journalists – yet both need the other. The difficulty and challenge is finding the right balance to work together.
As a journalist, I seldom went through the public relations office of any story I was covering, unless it was absolutely essential – i.e. an interview with a key spokesperson or access to a particular site had to be solicited through that office. I distrusted the public relations practitioner who I viewed as an obstacle to getting my story – not as an asset. And the public relations practitioner undoubtedly viewed me in a similar light – as someone whose idea of balance and equitable coverage did not quite match up with what the practitioner sought to convey.
On the other hand, we did sometimes find that we needed each other and we would make a cautious approach and swap of information. But that came about with an equitable give-and-take which made for a win-win for both of us – I got the information I sought and the public relations practitioner got out an aspect of his or her message.
I disagree with both Merrill and Dennis in what they state in their respective arguments. I don’t think public relations manipulates the news – at least not all the time – nor do I think public relations provides an essential news service. Both arguments give the practice of public relations too much power. Public relations is just one component of public information – no more, no less.
That is not to say that there is not public relations does not try to manipulate the news. Certainly it does and the production of VNRs is one very good example of that. VNRs do come in disguise – and quite often are faked. However, the VNRs would not be effective if the public relations agency or office did not have a partner in crime – the television news programs that accept the VNRs and present the information as their own. That’s just what KMSP in Minnesota did with its use of the General Motors VNR
So when it comes to VNRs, I think both sides are guilty.
This week’s readings provide a grounding in the basics of current public relations thinking – the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly – the perception and the reality that even today, despite the concern about ethics and excellence within the practice of public relations there is still much that is neither excellent nor ethnical. I mentioned VNRs, but third-party endorsement campaigns are also disturbing. They are part of the same disquieting trends that we looked out in advertising – like the camera phone ploy used on New York City tourists. I would also put a kind of talking in tongues that is another tool of the trade right up there – such as the quite successful public relations ploy implemented by the Bush Administration to refer to global warming as climate change.
Or referring to its own public relations efforts as public diplomacy?
The Linning article was right on target in many ways – from its start in 1652 and the practice of getting someone else to “lye” for you to the “example of clean water example of “emotional blackmail.” And with so many communication channels available these days by way of blogs, podcasts. I think those kinds of practices will not only continue but thrive.
Traditionally, or at least in recent years, the relationships between journalists and public relation practitioners in the United States have been ones of mutual dependency and mutual distrust. Are we two sides of the same coin? I don’t know. But this may not necessarily be so in other countries and in other contexts. For example, in many countries public relations practitioners are considered journalists. In Latin America, for example, the public relations person or “relacionista” I is often referred to as the “periodista” or journalists. In many countries communicators across the board are members of the same quasi-labor unions. That is not the case, here of course, but this crossing over concept as practiced in other countries might merit further exploration
As a journalist, I seldom went through the public relations office of any story I was covering, unless it was absolutely essential – i.e. an interview with a key spokesperson or access to a particular site had to be solicited through that office. I distrusted the public relations practitioner who I viewed as an obstacle to getting my story – not as an asset. And the public relations practitioner undoubtedly viewed me in a similar light – as someone whose idea of balance and equitable coverage did not quite match up with what the practitioner sought to convey.
On the other hand, we did sometimes find that we needed each other and we would make a cautious approach and swap of information. But that came about with an equitable give-and-take which made for a win-win for both of us – I got the information I sought and the public relations practitioner got out an aspect of his or her message.
I disagree with both Merrill and Dennis in what they state in their respective arguments. I don’t think public relations manipulates the news – at least not all the time – nor do I think public relations provides an essential news service. Both arguments give the practice of public relations too much power. Public relations is just one component of public information – no more, no less.
That is not to say that there is not public relations does not try to manipulate the news. Certainly it does and the production of VNRs is one very good example of that. VNRs do come in disguise – and quite often are faked. However, the VNRs would not be effective if the public relations agency or office did not have a partner in crime – the television news programs that accept the VNRs and present the information as their own. That’s just what KMSP in Minnesota did with its use of the General Motors VNR
So when it comes to VNRs, I think both sides are guilty.
This week’s readings provide a grounding in the basics of current public relations thinking – the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly – the perception and the reality that even today, despite the concern about ethics and excellence within the practice of public relations there is still much that is neither excellent nor ethnical. I mentioned VNRs, but third-party endorsement campaigns are also disturbing. They are part of the same disquieting trends that we looked out in advertising – like the camera phone ploy used on New York City tourists. I would also put a kind of talking in tongues that is another tool of the trade right up there – such as the quite successful public relations ploy implemented by the Bush Administration to refer to global warming as climate change.
Or referring to its own public relations efforts as public diplomacy?
The Linning article was right on target in many ways – from its start in 1652 and the practice of getting someone else to “lye” for you to the “example of clean water example of “emotional blackmail.” And with so many communication channels available these days by way of blogs, podcasts. I think those kinds of practices will not only continue but thrive.
Traditionally, or at least in recent years, the relationships between journalists and public relation practitioners in the United States have been ones of mutual dependency and mutual distrust. Are we two sides of the same coin? I don’t know. But this may not necessarily be so in other countries and in other contexts. For example, in many countries public relations practitioners are considered journalists. In Latin America, for example, the public relations person or “relacionista” I is often referred to as the “periodista” or journalists. In many countries communicators across the board are members of the same quasi-labor unions. That is not the case, here of course, but this crossing over concept as practiced in other countries might merit further exploration
posted by Ronnie @ 6:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home