Journalists and PRs: can it ever be a marriage?

Last week I debated the various strengths and weaknesses of PR and the media at a splendid event arranged by the CIPR’s Greater London Group in conjunction with the Media Society.  Alongside Jo Tanner, and CIPR Hon Fellow, Peter Luff MP – I did my bit speaking up for our industry against a heavyweight media line-up which included Guardian columnist and former editor of the Daily Mirror, Roy Greenslade, the Independent’s first media editor, Maggie Brown, and the former BBC arts editor, Rosie Millard now of the Sunday Times.

Moderated by former BBC Radio 4 Today programme presenter Sue Macgregor, the event was great knockabout fun in front of an audience of around 100 people.

Cherry Chappell of the Greater London Group was one of the event organisers and she told me that the 50 places for the event allocated to the CIPR were snapped up within 24 hours of the announcement.  Indeed, 70 people applied, so there was even a waiting list.

We were debating the topic: Journalists and PRs: can it ever be a marriage?  It would have been interesting to take a vote on that question at the end of the debate, but instead the vote looked to cover issues of trust surrounding news coverage and that was won fairly clearly by the Media.

My own view on the question of “can it ever be a marriage” is quite simple – it is a marriage and the question is actually what sort of marriage is it?

Having read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, I am more convinced than ever that the pressure on the media of the 24 hour news cycle, the rise of the constantly updated news web site, and the ever growing influence of social media news sites, is actually affecting news quality adversely.

Meanwhile, our own industry gets larger and its influence on the news cycle also grows.  And while some of you will see this as a good thing, generally speaking I believe the public is better served by a strong, accurate, and independent media.

What’s more, I feel that PR does its best work in that environment and that both organisations and individuals are best served by a strong media and strong tactical PR advice and programmes.  A weak media, that swallows weak PR stories and doesn’t do enough verification and analysis, is not in the best interests of the good PR professional, the media, companies and organisations, or indeed the readers. 

Cherry Chappell summed up the situation well: the debate should actually have been about standards and the need for both parties to keep improving.  But that connects to a bigger issue in media land.

Because as the methods available to consume news continue to evolve, the media world needs to react and change in order to maintain and shore up its business model in the face of falling numbers – both in terms of circulation and advertising. 

Charging for online content is, for example, currently a very hot topic.  But in the UK,  where a news web site as comprehensive as the BBC is available free and funded by the public purse, it is hard to see how any other outlet – beyond specialist sites such as FT.com - could begin to charge a subscription for access to news.

I’m sure therefore that it comes back to content.  Content is king: it is what attracts and keeps the readers and that’s why both we, and the media, need to continue to work on improving the quality of our output.

I’m actually less interested in whether the relationship between the two sides is a marriage – and more interested in seeing that it stays healthy and survives.

Comments

[Paul Seaman]

You make good points. The great thing about New Media - disintermediation - is that PR becomes the media. I examine how the hostility between hacks and PRs is not only snobbish, but also phony, here. :

http://paulseaman.eu/2009/01/prs-and-hacks-time-to-call-a-truce/

[Richard Bailey]

Despite the obviously symbiotic relationship, it's worth keeping in mind the fundamentally different objectives of PR and journalism.

There were countless times in my consultancy work when I had to confront clients with the blatant contradiction that these champions of free market competition could be almost Stalinist in their resentment of the operation a free press. I quoted Margaret Thatcher to them (this was a long time ago): 'you can't have a free society without a free press'.

[Mel Atkinson]

It's not and should never be a marriage - perhaps the best both sides can hope for is cupboard love. A decent journalist will always find ways to bypass PR and get the story, especially if a PR operation relies on spin or one dimensional puff-pieces. Similarly, experienced PR people can sniff out which journalists or media outlets are weak or under-resourced and will start placing items with them. However, there is a danger that approach only produces short-term gains and undermines longer-term relationships. Despite "churnalism", I think that PR works most effectively with the media when it adds value, by playing things straight, being pro-active and showing an understanding of how journalists work. In those circumstances, it can be a relationship that benefits both sides - and, more importantly, benefits the public. How do I know this? Like many new CIPR members, I'm a journalist - and I care about the health and integrity of both professions.