Category: journalism

Has the AP Lost its Role as Standard for Writing?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

It used to be called the “bible” of journalism, and as such was widely respected by those in public relations who wrote news releases and other items sent to reporters.

But the Associated Press Style Guide has gone from an annual spiral bound book to an online subscription site with email updates to something potentially irrelevant. The Associated Press (AP) has gone from covering news and guiding how news should be covered to making news of its own. It has gone from promoting an objective style to pushing subjective and partisan framing.

This came to a head when the Trump administration banned the AP from the White House briefing room after the organization refused to acknowledge a name change from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. However, a variety of sources have reported that there is more to it than that, including the Wall Street Journal, Daily Signal, and Axios. Other reporting revealed that the AP receives funding from the far-left Omidyar Network. It has also been noticed that the AP never covered the fact that more than 400 reporters had their press pass revoked by the Biden administration. 

Apart from the Gulf of America naming issue, criticism of the AP’s drift into leftist partisanship has been growing over time. Examples include their guidance to capitalized Black but not white when referring to a subject’s race. Or their “Transgender Topical Coverage Guide” that warns not to include comments from experts that are contrary to the approved narrative—an example that shows a taking of sides and censorship of voices that is far removed from non-partisan objectivity on which the AP built its reputation.

I have heard that many PR firms and corporate communication offices are eschewing the AP in favor of their own house style. I also see in many actual newspapers a style that is different than that of the AP (this could be negligence more than protest, but the case remains). Of course the emergence of blogs and independent journalism means much writing has gone from 3rd person to first person voice and other deviations from standard AP style. I have decided to not let my AP subscription auto-renew, and will explain all this to future classes and let the adoption of the AP guide be optional.

Meanwhile, since the AP thinks it does not have to respond to formal name changes, I have seen some change the name of the AP from Associated Press to other options. These include American Pravda, Aggregated Propaganda, or Associated Partisanship. Its notable that some of the alternatives seem more accurate and objective.

The business of journalism and the future of PR

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

An annual report from a news outlet says a lot about the business of journalism. For one thing, journalism is a business.

It may also be a nonprofit mission. 

One thing journalism is not is an institution with a unique claim to the first amendment and role in democracy. Oh it certainly has “a” role, but it is not unique to journalism. When “freedom of the press” was inscribed into our First Amendment it was a reference not to an institution or an as-yet unformed profession. It was about people who owned and operated a printing press. 

In other words, business men.

These people were printers, and they printed leaflets, advertisements and many things, including newspapers. All of the above had been restricted under the British Stamp Act, requiring a literal stamp of approval by the government before anything could be published. This was one of many grievances our founders had against King George. 

In our modern era, the “press” includes all forms of means to produce and distribute information. So-called “mainstream” media are part of that. But so are an increasing number of other voices contributing information and perspective to the public sphere.

So, our democracy has become also a cacophony. It is the beautiful mess of freedom. But in this mess traditional journalism has had to adapt, to pivot, just like any other businesses adjusting to technology, market demand and other changes.

My thinking on this was prompted by two publications recently. One was an article in Crain’s Grand Rapids Business about the creative ways journalism is handling it’s current business crisis. Incidentally,  Crains just recently added a paywall, so subscription is required to read this article. Crain’s also has gone from free publication of those personnel and brief company updates to a paid model. Both are signs of the business reality of needing revenue from multiple sources now that the old model of subscriptions and large advertising income alone is not sustainable.

Another item that caught my eye was the Bridge Michigan and Bridge Detroit annual report. It is an interesting read, showcasing their values, coverage areas, awards won, and the annual report requisite numbers about readership and revenue. I found it interesting and well done, as a subscriber and a PR professional. It meets the goal of annual reports of transparency, loyalty building, brand promotion and solicitation. 

Both the article and annual report from media outlets I subscribe to are a reminder to me not to take good reporting for granted. They also are evident that journalism is not taking readers for granted. Nor should they. The competitive landscape has changed:

  • So much of the media marketplace is online, where news is shared not in a branded publication or outlet but a single story at a time, aggregated by third parties like Apple News, Flipboard and others or users’ own forms of curation;
  • News links have been banned in some countries on social media because publishers need to make the profit, not the social platforms. But this also limits distribution;
  • Many other businesses are doing brand journalism that extends beyond their product or service lines and simple brings more content into the overall media mix. Examples include Coke‘s studio and UPS stories. 
  • Traditional media organizations are increasingly seeing competition from independent journalists who start their solo brand on platforms like Substack. Examples include Christopher Rufo, Matt Taibi, and Bari Weiss, all of whom left jobs at prominent media to be journalism entrepreneurs.
  • Then there is the host of alternative media platforms ranging from the Daily Wire and Blaze Media on the Right to Slate and Huffington Post on the left. 
  • To round out the landscape there is a growing number of think-tanks and other similar institutions that put out daily articles. These include the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, the Cato Institute, and the Brookings Institute.

All of this relates to public relations in several ways. Obviously, the media relations aspect of public relations is affected—if people don’t read or believe the media en masse, it has less credibility and reach and is therefore less useful as a public relations channel. Secondly, public relations professionals have increasing outlets to reach, and can also be very successful representing organizations with branded journalism and other channels they can control as part of a growing mix of tactical options.

One of the key questions going forward has to be if journalism in competition will see objectivity as a unique selling proposition or a competitive liability. Will news outlets brand themselves by ideology or neutrality. This will also affect the decisions of which media PR professionals pitch and where media planners buy advertising. 

There are examples of both with new online outlets in Michigan. Bridge, which I mentioned earlier, promotes objectivity and bi-partisan reporting in its annual report. Meanwhile, the Michigan Advance sells its “top notch progressive commentary”.

While each journalism outlet will make its own editorial policy and market-driven decisions, there is also an issue of journalism damaging its “institutional brand.’ For example, public relations professionals hate the expression “just PR” which takes a single episode of bad practice and smears the whole profession. I wrote about the notion of “just journalism” previously due to the growing lack of objectivity in reporting, with even some editors speaking of it with disdain as something old-fashioned. 

Since writing that I have seen more examples of waning objectivity not just at the national level but in local media. My local paper refused to cover a story about a teacher quitting over mandated critical race theory lessons because the editor’s wife was a teacher and became the managing editor is “against book banning,’ even though that was not the issue in this case. It was news, regardless of editors’ personal opinions. A local TV station refused to cover people who were concerned about the appropriateness of public drag queen performances because they “did not want to give platform to hate.” Again, that is a pre-judgment and subjective value decision, not one of objective journalism to tell the story and represent all views.

I don’t know if the market—i.e. readers, listeners, viewers and in turn advertisers—will restore journalism to a sustainable business with a unique identity as professional purveyors of objective truth. It could be we have enjoyed a period of time in which news media was central to communication and a revered societal institution that will one day be seen as quaint, as different groups settle into their partisan echo chambers to be fed red herrings and propaganda. But, change happened before in the media.

A little less than 80 years ago, in 1947, prominent media formed the Hutchins Commission, chaired by Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, in an impressive act of professional self regulation. They asserted a need for freedom of the press but also a need for journalists to resist sensationalism and give society what it needs.

And so, once again perhaps journalism may need a business retreat. As a profession, it needs to consider what it offers of unique value to society. It is not enough to assert its “importance to democracy” when readers are tired of its flaws and many others as I mentioned above are doing their own reporting, ranging from objective to perspective. 

From Fourth Estate to ‘Just Journalism’–An Opportunity for Public Relations

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

I have a healthy respect for journalism. It was my undergraduate major and I worked as a journalist for my first professional jobs before moving to public relations practice and ultimately teaching public relations.

As part of my PR career, I focused for a season on a specific aspect of public relations called media relations, also called earned media, which of course means handling requests from reporters and pitching stories and sending news releases to targeted media. It was largely an enjoyable job with productive relationships and mutual respect.

I have also watched as many journalists, like myself, made the switch from journalism into public relations. They now bring writing skills to roles such as public information officer, content producer, corporate communications director and others of the myriad forms of public relations, even in some cases exhibiting the management function PR can play for organizations.

But as I look at journalism today, I have significant concerns for a noble profession that has been called the ‘fourth estate” of American democracy. Bad public relations practice has often been called “just PR.” This is of course unfair to many legitimate professionals who practice public relations with ethics, strategy and understanding, as attested to in the book It’s Not Just PR.

Journalism should also be seen as a collection of both good and bad professionals, and some who engage in journalism who are not professionals. But, looking at the institution of journalism as a whole lately, I’d have to say the determination of what is news and what is not, and how to cover it, leads me to consider much of what I see in the media today as “just journalism.”

I am not alone in my estimation of modern journalism. Consider some other credible reports in recent months that are critical of the profession:

  • Columbia University in its report “Ghosting the News” speaks of the lack of local reporting holding government accountable;
  • Walter Hussman Jr. in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed points out the paradox of declining public trust in newspapers but editors insisting that objectivity is somehow old-fashioned as a standard for reporting. He notes only 16% of people in 2022 had a “lot of trust” in newspapers, and also cites an Arizona State University survey of journalists called “Beyond Objectivity” in which many of today’s journalists do not regard simply reporting the facts as a standard for the profession.
  • A lengthy series in the journalism trade publication Columbia Journalism Reviewlooks at the ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ allegations as an example of partisan coverage of a president, really political advertising in the name of journalism;
  • Several prominent journalists (liberals, mind you) have left the ranks of mainstream media because of the bias they experienced daily. They have taken to writing on Substack and other outlets as independent journalists. Two recently gave Congressional testimony to Congress about not just the media but the government and social media companies working together to censor free speech. Their testimonies were based on their reporting in what has become known as the “Twitter files”. You can read the full congressional testimonies of Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi.

The notion that journalists who want to actually do journalism have to leave mainstream media to do so is discussed at length by James O’Keefe in his book “American Muckraker: Rethinking Journalism for the 21st Century”. O’Keefe is known for independent investigative journalism with the organization Project Veritas. He was ousted from that organization by its board in February, and has announced he will launch the O’Keefe Media Group in July.

O’Keefe made a name for himself through surreptitious audio and video recordings in his reporting. He justifies this by noting it is the only way, working against big tech and big media, to be believed. Essentially, the news media has become a corporate conglomerate and the independent function of journalism as a watchdog on truth has been left for a new era of muckrakers.

He takes a historical look at the problem of journalism as propaganda. He cites Orwell’s 1984 and Chris Hedges in “Wages of Rebellion” to note that the object of censorship and persecution of viewpoints is to break the will. He refers to Upton Sinclair’s 1908 “The Jungle” about corrupt journalism and the 1919 expose “The Brass Check.” He quotes Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “By what law has the press been elected and to whom is it responsible?” O’Keefe also reminds readers that Karl Marx was a journalist, likening the famed socialist to the American media today in both ideology and impact.

O’Keefe also takes on the communication technology, i.e. big tech, establishment. He notes that “tech platforms freely contribute falsehoods while banning truthful videos of the muckraker” (e.g. his own). He concludes that “almost as soon as the internet established liberating influences, forces centralized to counter that liberation.”

Most interesting to public relations professionals and educators is O’Keefe’s citation of Edward Bernays from his 1927 book “Propaganda.” Bernays called propaganda a tool of the elite to manipulate masses and the investigative journalist the natural enemy of the propagandist.

While many blame Bernays for associating public relations with propaganda in this book and for working with the government on propaganda during the world wars, O’Keefe points out that Bernays equated many journalists with propaganda. O’Keefe concludes of mainstream media like the New York Times and Washington Post that “the business they are in caters to an increasingly narrow audience of affluent ideologues.”

My question is, who is the muckraker today? Who works to ensure the public is served, and is served by unfettered full information of all perspectives?

John Stuart Mill famously said “let truth and falsehood grapple and the truth will out.” Now we are seeing countless examples of that which was censored as “misinformation” emerging as true. So we are left to grapple with how we should think about journalism today. What should we call a profession that puts on the mantle of democracy but eschews objectivity and determines arrogantly what people should and should not see? If we have to question if we are getting the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth from our media, then we have to look at what they give us as “just journalism.”

I would say the antidote to “just journalism” is traditional public relations. By that I mean open, transparent and honest practice. Seeing publics in relationship, not as a target to manipulate. PR “professionals” (i.e. not mere practitioners) have always been upfront about advocacy, corporate social responsibility, honestly promoting a particular point of view ethically in the “marketplace of ideas.” If the New York Times has gone from “all the news that’s fit to print” to activism, and the Washington Post motto of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” has gone from warning to promise, then it will be left to public relations to counter the wolf in sheep’s clothing, to combat with honest civil discourse the surreptitious propaganda of “just journalism” posing as an institution of free democracy.

Freedom of the “press” was never for just journalists—it was for anyone with the means to produce and distribute information. Public relations needs to claim its constitutional right, and moral responsibility and noble professional purpose to do so.

Two Sides to PR Pros and Facilitating Interviews

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Earlier this week I received an email from a faculty colleague in another field. He was seeking my advice dealing with public relations people.

He hosts a podcast on issues in his field, and had recently reached out directly to an expert researcher on a specific topic who worked at another university. He was inviting her to be on his podcast as an expert guest to discuss that topic.

He was put off that he got a response not from the professor, but a public relations person. That person asked for a more refined description of the topic of discussion, a list of questions, and the names of anyone else who would be on the segment. 

So my colleague complied with all he had been asked for. More than a month transpired with not a word. That’s when he reached out to me.

Coincidentally, the next day I randomly encountered a thread on Twitter in which a journalist complained about the difficulties of setting up an interview with a public official. Her series of tweets laid out her frustrations:

“Hello twitter, I want to talk today about the state of the press relations in the United States. You may or may not know, but it is increasingly rare for your local journalist to be able to simply call an official to ask questions.

Instead, we are made to go through a spokesperson who often will not answer the phone when called. This person often asks for written questions and provides written responses. These responses, as you can imagine, often inspire further follow up questions.

This back and forth, which often takes weeks (and leaves both parties exasperated), could alternately be handled by a one hour or so interview with an actual official, which would be so much easier and produce way better results for everyone.“

These similar complaints from a professor with a podcast and a professional journalist illustrate one point I told my friend. He is acting as a de facto journalist. The media landscape has changed with professional journalists now supplemented by “citizen journalists” or content providers who have their own blogs, podcasts, newsletters and more.

At first PR or public affairs people ignored them, but in the past 10 years the conventional wisdom has been to treat bloggers and podcasters as journalists. That’s because, whether professional or not, such people have an audience. It may be a large audience, or a small one with a niche demographic or topical interest. 

So let me say a few things from the perspective of a public relations professional today when it comes to interview requests. 

First, any given journalist may not be the only interview request a person has received. I remember in my previous career doing media relations for the university where I now teach being overwhelmed with the number of requests for interviews from journalists. I often would encourage a journalist to contact directly the source for a story if I had pitched it or sent a news release. But otherwise I had to try to find and convince someone to respond to the request if a journalist was doing an enterprise story.

There are now more than 2 million podcasts in the United States, according to EarthWeb. Meanwhile, Oberlo reports there are more than 600 million blogs today. Granted, not every blogger or podcaster interviews people. But there is a greater potential to receive requests for interviews and information. 

Most likely interview subjects have a high level of responsibility and/or expertise, and are therefore busy. True, an interview could be an opportunity to reach people with an important message. But they also can be seen as interruptions or less urgent than other tasks at hand. They have public relations people to help determine if opportunities are good in terms of the topic and the potential audience. Yes publicity is important but it is only one consideration in public relations.

I’ve been burned myself as an expert when media interviews were not what I was told by a reporter or producer they would be. I have found out in a TV station green room that I was one of several subjects and they really wanted us to argue on the air (because it would be good for ratings). I’ve also been asked questions that were considerably uninformed such that they were off topic entirely. 

By the way, public relations people are also busy. Media relations is only one aspect of their work. Public relations people are producing their own tactics—ads, internal publications, websites, social media and more. They also spend much of their day counseling CEOs and other managers on not just communications but management. 

That being said, public relations people spend considerable time and effort training executives and others to do quality interviews for print, broadcast or online. This helps journalists tremendously to get good, honest, meaningful commentary and avoid awkward “deer-in-the-headlights” moments. I know I personally had to spend lots of time persuading someone to do an interview when they otherwise would have ignored a journalist.

But the journalists—both professional and otherwise—also have some valid perspective. And I worked as a journalist before I was in public relations practice and education, so I know this well.

First, some journalists are open to sending questions or at least specifying the topic. I think it can be a win-win because subjects do come more prepared. I also have received questions in an email and arranged for a client to respond. They have time to think and craft answers this way. Plus, with email being asynchronous, there is no need to arrange a common time for an interview to happen. On the other hand, some journalists want a conversation and not canned answers that people merely read.  Also, the expectation is that if someone is an expert they should be able to discuss off the cuff. 

There is a difference between long-lead publications and outlets on general interest topics and watchdog journalism on a tight deadline covering city hall or corrupt corporations. In the former, providing more context may be reasonable. But in the latter, dropping everything to avoid the dreaded “unavailable for comment” would be the public relations professional’s best strategy in terms of ongoing reputation and in fact an obligation to be responsive to stakeholders through the media. 

In the end, as in any relationship, there are two perspectives. In this case, the perspectives are both professional. Sometimes they align in terms of a desire to address the same topic and audience. And sometimes, alas, they do not.

If We Had a ‘Meet the PR Pro’ Panel for Journalists

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Local chapters of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) frequently have “meet the media” panels as a feature of monthly programming. In these informative sessions, local journalists representing print, TV, radio and online media outlets share the type of news they cover, how they cover it, the best way to reach and pitch them, and more.

These are helpful sessions, especially for younger public relations professionals.

But I have often wondered why we can’t reciprocate—why can’t we invite an audience of journalists to hear a panel of PR professionals? Because there are a lot of misperceptions among journalists about what PR is and how PR professionals do their jobs. 

 Here are some points that could be made to an assembly of reporters:

  • Media relations and pitching stories to journalists is a small part of what PR people do. While some PR people may  focus on that role, such as media relations managers or public information officers (PIOs), some PR people do very little or no media relations. 
  • News releases and pitches are just one tactic PR people use. PR is about building mutual relationships with multiple publics, and all forms of communication are used by professionals. These can include paid advertising, organizational media such as newsletters, annual reports, brochures and more, or the vast array of digital media including email campaigns and social media and wed sites. Most PR people have a number of ways to directly and effectively reach internal and external publics. Journalists come into play occasionally.
  • Where journalists sometimes feel outnumbered by PR professionals pitching them far more stories than they could ever do, PR people feel outnumbered by journalists asking for comments, interviews and information for stories the PR person may not have initiated. A news conference can help add efficiency in such cases, but with breaking news a PR pro may have to make multiple callbacks to journalists even as they are dealing with questions from a client or CEO, planning an investor conference call, working a community relations meeting, attempting to meet a deadline for internal communication and more.
  • While journalists sometimes complain of PR people pitching things that are not even newsworthy, PR people complain of some journalists doing stories that are more market-driven (ie good for ratings) than newsworthy, or they cover stories in a way that is sensationalistic as opposed to objective reporting. 
  • Journalists may feel annoyed by PR people interrupting them with pitches, but should keep in mind that it is often only through a PR person that a journalist is aware of some news or gets access to an interview with a well-informed source. Often such high-profile individuals have to be convinced to even do an interview since they feel too busy for journalists. PR people also offer media training so that executives give clear, concise, factual and compelling interviews that provide key information as well as those all important quotes, SOTs and actualities. 
  • Journalists should be careful who they call PR people. Just as not every rogue blogger is an actual journalist, there are numerous people out there who pitch stories who have no degree in PR, much less accreditation (APR) or even a job title that is public relations. Don’t judge a whole profession by a few imposters or bad actors. In fact, in the history of White House press secretaries, only one or two was actually a PR person. Most come from politics. The same lack of PR pedigrees is common in corporate and nonprofit settings as well.
  • Legitimate PR people are inherently ethical. They bristle at the notion of “spin” and deception. College PR programs stress the big picture and ethical practice of PR. Advocacy for an organization and persuasion if done honestly is not “spin” or “putting an organization in a positive light.” It is professional representation of a voice and perspective that has a legitimate right to be heard in the “marketplace of ideas.”
  • Finally, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the “press” is not actually about journalism. It is about all citizens being able to print (ie on a printing press) and distribute information, and today that applies to other communication technologies. PR and advertising professionals are afforded the same rights as journalists in this regard.

These are just a few comments that could come up at a panel for journalists to understand public relations and those who practice it, as well as how it should be practiced professionally. There are many productive journalist-PR pro relationships, and they usually involve a healthy mutual understanding of each other’s job.