Stop Pillorying PR: Let’s Call Out Crappy Reporting for a Change
By Christopher Parente, Managing Director, Strategic Communications Group
If you are a communications professional, you are sure to have heard that PR staff and the media need each other. It’s a symbiotic relationship that won’t work unless each side respects the other and understands where the other party is coming from.
That may have been true at one time, but the relationship is a very uneven one when it comes to accountability. For years, various publications and sites have thoroughly enjoyed pillorying PR people for shoddy, poorly researched pitches. (God knows, so-called “pitch shops” give them enough material to work with, but that’s a topic for another piece.) Some well known examples include Gawker’s “PR Dummies” and the descriptively titled Bad Pitch blog.
So where is the equivalent site for poorly researched, poorly written media stories? There isn’t one—and that’s how you can tell this symbiotic relationship isn’t an equal one.
Every competent communicator has been the victim of a poorly done story on a client. Notice I’m not saying a negative story, which is always a possibility and if the facts are accurate you just deal with it. I’m talking about a poorly done story—quotes mangled, single sourced, pieces in which the reporter and editor just didn’t do their homework.
When this happens, the PR person usually just suffers in silence. They don’t feel they can publicly complain, for fear of burning a bridge they will need later with the publication in question. So they mutter into their beer(s), kvetch to family and maybe moan about what a tough job PR is. Basically do everything except call the reporter out.
What if PR people could even the playing field? In this day and age of SEO above all else, why should the sloppy, incorrect story be the only one prospects and partners can find online? When all other avenues have been exhausted, why don’t PR people start to populate a CrappyReporting.com site?
You may be thinking right now, “Hey this sounds great, but no one will actually do it.” Well I did it two summers ago, when a customer was poleaxed by the USA Today and Byron Acohido.
Acohido is a talented technology reporter, and won a Pulitzer back in the late 1990s. But in August 2010, he wrote a single sourced story in which an executive announced a new service offering, and took shots at a direct competitor (my client). In reality, the supposed new service had been offered since 2001 and the executive quoted had recently worked for the competitor. Neither fact was shared with readers of the story.
Armed with these points, I thought I could get some kind of edit to the online version of the story. However, that was not the case, and after being ignored I suggested to my client that we get these facts out the only way we could—through a detailed post on my personal blog. To their credit, my client agreed.
After the post was published, I did finally receive a response from Acohido’s editor, saying they “stood by their reporting.” At that point, so did I. You can see that email and the full story here.
A few suggested rules of the road before going public with your frustrations:
- Try every other avenue first to connect with the media source and get some kind of correction.
- Never get personal—stick to facts left out of story, or to inaccuracies therein.
- Make sure your reaction is in strategy for the client—is the media source worth responding to? Where online should the response be published?
Does this sound too risky? What happens the next time a client of mine “needs” Acohido or someone else at USA Today? For my agency this was not high risk, because media outreach isn’t a big part of what we do anymore.
Today, it’s all about content marketing, helping clients produce high quality content that is then marketed directly to prospects through social media channels. I work for B2B and B2G clients, and they want demonstrable results from their communications efforts. We tie our content to demonstrable outcomes like organic SEO improvement, prospect identification, lead generation, deal capture and improvements in lead scoring.
Often, more “traditional” PR benefits like secured stories, increased awareness and connections with niche influencers also accrue with a content marketing strategy. But those are added benefits, not the outcomes our projects are measured on.
My agency has gone this route partly due to the decimation of established media due to the rise of the Internet and social media. In my 2010 blog post, I hypothesized that this is what led to the Acohido story. Staffs have been cut to the bone, the reporters that are left are covering far more beats and have to publish more and more frequently.
Quality is going down the drain, even from sources like USA Today. It’s even worse in the technology trades, many of which have gone digital only to further cut costs. In such a vacuum, why shouldn’t smart companies step in and publish their own content? This concept is far more mainstream now than it was two years ago, with major brands like IBM and Juniper employing former journalists and investing large sums in their own publishing and networking communities online.
Of course, clients will always enjoy a positive story in a media outlet they perceive as influential. But that is becoming more and more peripheral to how communications is practiced today. And because of that, PR people won’t have to suffer in silence much longer when crappy reporting strikes.
Like Jerry Maguire said after his memo got him fired—“Who’s with me?”
###
Christopher Parente is managing director and partner of Strategic Communications Group, a social media and public relations consultancy based in Silver Spring, Maryland and Tysons Corner, Virginia. You can follow Chris on LinkedIn or Twitter.
You may also be interested in...
Published: June 17, 2012 By:
Yes, hooray for Christopher. Not only should crappy reporting be outed, it should be corrected, clarified and commented on.
Two aspects of reporting the constant commentary, fundamental truthfulness, and what is real and what is fabricated.
If you’re interested, send me an e-mail to
jel@e911.com, subject line: Truth and Correction, and I’ll send two documents:” Control Your Own Destiny, Through Correction, Clarification, and Commentary, or Someone Else Will” (a web-based approach having the last word on your news coverage by directly correcting, clarifying and commenting on news stories; and,” The News Story Truthfulness test,” seven crucial questions and language tests that indicate the truthfulness of a story or report.
My comment needs a little editing . . .I will resubmit it shortly.
Jim
_________________________
Corrected version:
Yes, hooray for Christopher. Not only should crappy reporting be outed, it should be corrected, clarified and commented on.
Two aspects of reporting need analysis: fundamental truthfulness, and what is real and what is fabricated.
If you’re interested, send me an e-mail to
jel@e911.com, subject line: News Truth and Correction, and I’ll send two documents:
1. ” Control Your Own Destiny, Through Correction, Clarification, and Commentary, or Someone Else Will” (a web-based approach having the last word on your news coverage by directly correcting, clarifying and commenting on news stories; and,
2.” The News Story Truthfulness Test,” seven crucial questions and language tests that indicate the truthfulness of a story or report.
I’m with you, Christopher!!! I’m a writer who has been on both sides of the PR vs journalist issue. It’s frustrating when I have worked with a client to prepare all the background information in clear, usable formats, and when the client’s team has done everything right (followed up, responded promptly, been completely available), and the final published story is incomplete or slanted. And it was equally frustrating when I was writing for magazines and PR people would waste my time.
You are absolutely right that the best strategy for smart companies is to publish their own content. Of course, where does that leave the readers?
Having worked “both side of the street” myself:
In terms of accuracy of stories: If I felt that a story had inaccuracies and errors, I usually obtained good results writing a letter to the editor. However, that’s not as powerful as the initial story.
As a consumer of news: I echo Jacquelyn Lynn’s concerns: If a company is going to publish its own content: will the readers be able trust the accuracy and truthfulness of the material?
Thanks for the comment Jacquelyn. Your question is one I’ve dealt with many times in LI discussions around content marketing/brand journalism/whatever the next term will be.
As long as the sponsor is clearly identified and the content is factual and useful, I think the reader can be very well served.
I have a love/hate relationship with bad PR people. I love them because they make me look so good in a reporter’s eyes. I hate them because they taint all of us and make it that much harder to even get an audience.
You did a great job with your response to Bryan..absolutely focused solely on facts and even mentioned his impressive background.
No matter how often I tell my clients that it’s beneficial for them to “own”/create their content to repurpose, there still is that air of third-party credibility that a mainstrea story imparts. It’s still a key focus for many of mine, but I try to help them balance.
On the “other” side of the street, I freelance for the local daily paper (never writing about my clients) and I have been very impressed with the rigorous fact checking process my stories undergo.
My editor is amazing and for all the times I think quality is receding, I am buoyed by the treatment my stories get.
Thanks for a thought-provoking piece.
JUST WENT LIVE WITH http://WWW.LAUNCH.IT.
Self publishing site for aspiring PR Journalists.
Official launch is in September. Picking up some early support from many PR Agencies.
Watch video.
Would love your thoughts.
I belong to the “manage your own destiny or someone else will” school of thinking. The web, and new media, have given everyone of us a useful array of tools to get our stories, ideas, and crucial information across directly, and precisely targeted to those who need the information most.
We also have the opportunity to correct, clarify and comment on, sometimes with extraordinary detail, what others write and say about us.
One technique we use very frequently is a side-by-side analysis of articles, letters, monographs, scientific papers, broadcast scripts, flyers, posters.
On the left side of the computer screen is the document in question arrayed as individual paragraphs in boxes. On the right-hand side directly to the right, are open boxes containing our corrections, clarifications and commentary, often with links and additional references, in positive declarative language. This is a very powerful technique executed completely independently of the information source.
Once this analysis is completed it can be sent immediately, electronically, to whomever we believe has an interest in the subject matter. This, of course, is faster than a speeding headline, and much more powerful. It is searchable and will come up whenever relevant or related information or articles are searched.
This is a sensible, constructive, positive, ethical approach to managing our own destiny. It calms people down, answers the questions that coverage tends to raise, satisfies the lawyers, makes the bosses comfortable, bills credibility among constituencies by giving them authorized, vetted language and answers they can use, and tends to give us the last word.
There is one warning, if you’re a jerk, bad person, company, agency or organization, these techniques will not protect you. If you are unethical, a perpetrator, or just plain stupid, careless, or arrogant, the only way these techniques work to your benefit is to change your behavior and to talk about it aggressively, generally using the mediums that have you under attack.
More information helps people get to the truth more quickly. Open discussions such as I’m suggesting here, ethically conducted, can resolve issues and answer questions with great promptness and great honesty. Is your destiny, it’s up to you.
(Three words NOT in my vocabulary: I’ll Be Brief”)
Coming strictly from a media background I can tell you that you are about 100% correct, this needs to be a two-way street.
In my decades of broadcasting, I have known outstanding reporters and journalists who pride themselves on presenting a story accurately and responsibly. I consider them the rule.
In the past few years however, I’ve noticed that more members of the media only look for the angle of the story in an attempt to make the story more sensational or to support a point of view or agenda. When you call them out on an inaccuracy some adopt the “oh well, too bad” mentality.
I have been guilty of what I call “Coming to a 100% conclusion with only 10% of the information.” On those occasions, I have always made a point to rectify any misinformation quickly and responsibly.
I believe this has less to do with sloppy or malicious reporting and more to do with being overloaded, higher demands on productivity and just laziness. Okay, sloppiness and laziness can be one and the same but you get the point.
I’ve known media members who’ll simply take what’s pitched to them, create whatever story or angle that suits the moment and run with it in order to meet a deadline. We will trust the source (and use it as a scapegoat if necessary)and push it on to the editor (if there is one) and convince them that “it’s all good” what I call the “this will do” mentality.
By no means am I using this as an excuse nor am I faulting the media as a whole, I’m simply sharing some of my observations.
The battle of being the biggest the baddest and the best content provider in media has become far more important than being fair, balanced or accurate. To some it’s better to run what you have, chance the inaccuracy and be first, than to wait and get it 100% correct a week after the fact. Tabloids succeeded on that idea for decades.
I believe that we as an industry are trying to find out exactly what our role is in 2012 and beyond. Social media and the explosion of content outlets have come along and kicked our anthill, scattering the industry in a million different directions.
There isn’t an outlet in media who is getting it 100% correct, but I believe many of us are trying.
I guess what I’m trying to say here is “Yes Mr. Parente, there needs to be accountability in both directions.”
We may not have a Bad Story Blog, but there are stories such as the recent NY Times piece on the San Diego U/T that offer a wide angle look at potential issues in the newsroom: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/business/media/san-diego-union-tribune-open-about-its-pro-business-motives.html?_r=1&ref=business
Wow what a great comment thread!
Skip — good to hear from a long-time media guy. I agree with you about cause — cutbacks and demands, not maliciousness. Of course that doesn’t make it easier to take.
Cathie — both sides of fence at once must be fascinating perspective. I think you need to write the next editorial!
James — I enjoyed your CommPro piece, thanks for comment. Definitely easier to control your own destiny today.
Joel — good NYT piece, interesting b/c I’ve gotten a couple of Twitter comments along that line. Politically biased reporting is a bad trend, but distinct from what I’m talking about in my piece.
Ha, thanks! Well I’m in the midst of a bit of a career change. I’ve been in PR forever, and while I still do PR for various clients, I am leaning more toward the writing side these days, trying to do more freelancing for blogs and content for B2B or B2C clients.
If I had one wish it would be the complete elimination of he-said-she-said reporting in the never-ending quest for balance.
Giving equal weight to facts and allegations that have no basis in fact does everyone — sources, audiences, and the news outlets themselves — a disservice. Far too many legitimate news outlets make sure to present both sides of a story so as not to appear biased, but they should be biased: biased toward facts.
I really like this post, and I do wish we could have a reporter/editor equivalent to the websites devoted to skewering PR folks. I may be more sensitive to it I think because I deal with business/energy issues and therefore am usually in a defensive position. It’s hard to get people who have an agenda and no journalistic integrity to do the right thing — and it can be really hard to walk away knowing there isn’t much you could really do about it. I run into that a lot with AP reporters. More than once, I’ve actually pitched an AP reporter only to have their “assistant” call back — and it’s really a reporter or content manager for a fringe group. I am so disappointed at what passes for journalism today. AP experience aside, case in point: I live in Chicago where we just had the NATO conference. There were college kids with opposition blogs and cameras in the crowds clearly on the side of the protesters (chanting, participating) — and the local stations are cutting to them and running their coverage like they are the next Walter Cronkite! Very little actual NATO coverage, just these silly kids. News flash: you aren’t supposed to be able to tell what side a REAL reporter is on! And, if you use colorful editorial from people on the street like that it should be from both sides. Where was the cop cam? Or the student covering NATO’s progress? Anyway, my rant is over, I’m glad you wrote this post but unfortunately I’m not sure there is a lot we can do except rant when given a chance.
Paul — true, although in my case he said/she said would have been better than single sourced.
Christine — thanks for comment. As for what to do about it, I suggest it in my editorial — pursue a content marketing strategy. Make your own news, rather than focus on media outreach that delivers less and less value.
I understand. I’ve implemented such strategies on behalf of clients in response to active discrimination. in my last sentence I meant “not a lot we can do” in more of a broad, you can’t change a leopard’s spots way.
This morning I found this quote which made me revisit your post:
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” — Frank Lloyd Wright
Cheers!
I hate it when you post a critical comment on a story, and then there are the predictable, obsequious comments from other PR pros rushing to the aid of the author’s honor. Indeed, it has not really been a two way street at all. A big part of the problem is that journalism is a popularity contest with readers, and then the heavies remain at the top often as much because of the large audiences they command as the quality of their content. In a perfect world, the content quality would be the thing that’s judged strongest. But in this tech media beauty pageant today, it’s audience, twitter followers, amplification / reach of story, seductiveness of headline – and then deep on the list of criteria is the defensibility of the argument presented in the content and quality of writing. But as a PR person, if you dare to step out of line and question it, it’s sour grapes, quiet from the peanut gallery. However, I would add that the pay grade of journalism should afford some leniency, b/c it’s awfully hard to expect perfection when the money’s not there. Where’s the incentive today to be a good tech reporter? The whole model is hosed, and we’re seeing the results of what happens when there’s not enough money going around to support good content.
The media business in America has always depended on customers choosing one over another, or as with newspapers, walking away almost entirely. Focusing on what reporters are paid as an excuse for producing a product customers avoid is pointless. Customers have their own problems. They could care less whether any particular medium is failing or suffering.
Somehow the American media believes that they have a franchise that only they can produce and control. And that all American owe them enough business and acceptant that survival is assured. The fallacy of this arrogant thinking is daily demonstrated by their declining numbers of customers, every day.
And the quality argument is belied by the 24/7 nonsense that pours out of the media machines every day. 95-99% of what we are offered, all of us can live without.
News has become mindless bloviating in search of an audience . . . Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the other legacy channels could do us all a favor by going dark 24-48 hours a week. That blinking Breaking News sign really stands for broken news repeated six to eight times a day. There might be far fewer mistakes and errors if less was produced with greater care and was inherently more important.
And today every news outlet has thousands of competitors, anyone with a keyboard or a smart phone, who can get on line.
If the media truly wants credibility there needs to be a mind-blowing shift in attitudes, beliefs, actions and intentions:
1. Admit their mistakes voluntarily, promptly, and fix them much more visibly.
2. Eliminate erroneous material from their data bases.
3. Stop whining that Americans are letting their news organizations die . . . and do what’s necessary to regain the customer trust and value they once had.
4. Do more than just ask contentious questions. Follow through on allegations made and make a constructive contribution to solving problems. Yes, no such obligations appear in the First Amendment. So that’s an excuse?
Well, the list goes on, and the chances of any of this happening are remote. The only organizations entitled to an audience or to a customer base are those who earn that base through serving the legitimate needs of those they serve, according to the needs and concerns of those they serve.
Whining is not a success strategy. Shaming people is unlikely to gather significant customer numbers; and the arrogant assumption that whatever the media says matters, even if there are errors, no longer has currency, if it ever did.
As the cliché goes, “It’s the customers, stupid.” Serve them and they will find you . . . for a while, then move on to something they like better.