If Wayne Rooney’s PR team had had some sense they would have known that one tell-all interview about prostitutes was quite enough personal information. But instead of then requesting privacy they advised him to splash his wedding photos across the covers of the nation’s glossy magazines. And then helped his wife to build an empire of fashion lines and reality TV shows on the back of his fame. Of course, they received a handsome fee for all this.
It should have come as no shock then when they were forced to advise him not to even try and keep the press quiet about recent allegations surrounding his infidelity. After all, he was happy to ‘bare all’ about similar stories in the past; the only difference was this time it wouldn’t be him and his advisors making money out of it. Rooney’s PR men have turned the idea of his ‘celebrity private life’ into a laughable oxymoron. It appears they’re not the only ones to have done so.
Celebrities, like Rooney and his wife Coleen, promote themselves, with the help of PR teams and advisors, as a brand and make a lot of money from telling the media about their private lives. Any celebrity worth their salt will now have accounts on many of the various social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, allowing them to promote themselves directly to their fans and across the Internet.
Frequently celebrities will use social networking as a covert PR tactic. They tweet personal information and then, just when we’re hooked, ask for the press to ‘respect their privacy’. Actor Neil Patrick Harris is a prime example of this. He tweeted that he and his partner were planning to adopt twins but also expected complete privacy. As every good celebrity advisor knows, by asking for privacy a celebrity will, more often than not, generate more press coverage – just take a look at the Catherine Zeta-Jones wedding photo scandal if you need proof. It’s all just a little like reverse psychology for the media world. After all, the word privacy just screams ‘scoop’ to journalists.
Despite this, it should not be forgotten that some celebrities are famous simply for being very good at their job. Fame is a price rather than a perk to these celebrities and they have no choice but to hire PR advisors simply because of who they are. These celebrities are usually able to have social networking accounts and handle publicity without causing too much scandal. They are after all just people living their lives. They are not elected officials or members of government necessarily deserving scrutiny for immoral behaviour. Which profession celebrities choose to work in should give the media no more right into their personal lives than they have into anyone else’s.
It is the celebrities who exploit their fame, through extensively revealing interviews, ‘too-much-information’ tweets and publicity stunts, who give up their privacy. Agents and PR teams must take responsibility for this though. Most celebrities have their actions dictated by advisors whose main aim is to make as much money from their 15 minutes of fame as possible. Although everyone is accountable for their personal actions, the way celebrities handle the media, particularly in times of crisis, is often not their decision.
As such, many celebrities are advised to plea for privacy on emotional grounds and there is no doubt that stories such as this do have a devastating impact on the individuals involved. However, it seems that much of the time the wish for privacy actually has nothing to do with protecting them. It is simply a PR team’s way of trying to save brand value and keep hold of lucrative sponsorships and contracts.
Rooney’s case draws unsurprising parallels with that of John Terry whose gagging order was over-turned because it appeared he was more concerned with protecting his financial interests than his family’s feelings. Rumours of Rooney’s infidelity were already rife in football circles. With the certainty that they would soon reach the Internet, it seems his advisors motivations may have been no different. The Rooney brand is fronted by a ‘happy family’ image and the suggestion is that it was this they were trying to salvage, not Coleen’s feelings.
Celebrities, despite what the media says, are not always aware of what they are letting themselves in for by becoming famous. The media argues that celebrities should expect privacy invasion simply because they’re famous and journalists often claim ‘the public’s right to know’. Whilst celebrities undoubtedly have a right to privacy what they have lost is the expectation of it. Rooney’s failure to obtain an injunction suggests that when it comes to celebrity PR clearly there is such a thing as ‘too-much-information’. Agents must make celebrities very aware that there’s only six inches between a pat on the back and a kick in the arse. Unlimited or uncontrolled promotion of private lives naturally compromises claims for personal privacy.
The media, public relations, companies we meet, best practice and things that get our goat.
Friday, 10 September 2010
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
CEOs need the ABC’s of media training ASAP
"There's no one who wants this over more than I do - I would like my life back,” said Tony Hayward, CEO of energy company BP, that’s dealing with the biggest oil spill in history, in response to finding a way to stop the spill. Hayward has already been dubbed "Wayward Hayward" by the media for his interview gaffes because even when he says very little, he gets it all wrong.
Examples like these prove that it is extremely important to have extensive media training before speaking to the press about any issue. This involves knowing how to effectively communicate with the press and news organizations to get your desired message across to the public. This is especially important during a time of crisis, because one needs to understand a news organizations’ needs and how to respond to the media, while at the same time protecting your company’s reputation.
There are many options for media training but regardless of the supplier, there are a few things that are critical to a media relations training program for the training to be worthwhile. Some tips include:
-Know how to handle interviews. Whether they are via telephone, email, or in person, knowing how to handle interviews is vital to the survival of any media spokesperson. This will allow for more effective communication, protection from not saying something stupid and always being on target to gain more coverage for the company.
-Spoon feed the media. The end goal is to cater to the media so that your news and company information has a large share of coverage in the article. This includes giving them press releases, backgrounders, images, videos, audio sound bytes and media packs to ensure your messages are communicated in the way you want them to be.
-Say what you want to say, and do so your way. It is important to exercise some control in interviews. This allows you to stay on message and make sure you are able to express your points without being overshadowed by journalist opinions. This also ensures you can answer questions the way you want and that the information you release is what you want, not what the media wants. Never say “No comment” or speak ‘Off the Record.’
-Pick an appropriate spokesperson. Especially in a time of crisis, the public wants to see an individual directly related to the situation speaking to the media. A senior representative in the company that has excellent communication skills is necessary to speak on behalf of the company.
A perfect example of someone who has been media trained to get their message across was Michael Howard when he was interviewed regarding the prison service in May 1997. Although he was relentlessly asked the same question by the interviewer, Jeremy Paxman, Howard was able to work around the question and give an answer he wanted to give that best represented his position on the issue.
Howard demonstrated a key media training tactic known as ‘ABC:’ Acknowledge, Bridge and Communicate. This method encourages the interviewee to take initiative and control the interview. One should acknowledge every question without necessarily answering it. For example, you may acknowledge a question by saying: ‘That’s an interesting point, but more importantly...’ Phrases like these create verbal bridges from which the interviewee can then communicate their key messages.
Overall it is important to know how to work with the media because they are your free advertising source, yet they can also be detrimental to your company’s reputation if not presented with solid information. It is their job only to report on a story, not to give free, positive, publicity to your company. They don’t work for your organization and as such, do not always want to print or broadcast the full story. It is your job as a well-trained media spokesperson to get a message out that best showcases your stance and positively represents your company.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
New Wave of Journalism affecting all areas of the Media
In an age when speed and efficiency are valued at such a high standard, journalists and editors are increasingly pressured to put out news information as soon as it breaks. Although the growth of online journalism and blogs give the public quick access to information, it is causing the quality of journalism to suffer. As PR professionals, we can learn many lessons from journalists and the importance of doing thorough research before reporting any information to the public.
It’s so easy to make mistakes when things are done quickly and to be considered a credible journalist, it’s not worth reporting information before the facts have been checked and confirmed.
A classic example was on May 13, 2006 when the BBC quite literally interviewed the wrong “Guy” for their segment on live television. A producer for the show came out to the lobby looking for Guy Kewney, who was supposed to be interviewed for the show, but it turned out that the producer grabbed Guy Goma, a man waiting for a job interview with the BBC Technology Department. This mistake caused weeks of embarrassment for the BBC and was all over news sites within a few hours of airing.
Left: (Guy Goma courtesy of the DailyMail.co.uk)
Right: (Guy Kewney courtesy of Fronline.co.uk)
Later that day, The Guardian, as well as several other publications posted on their websites that the man who had been mistakenly interviewed, Guy Goma, was a cab driver. On May 15, Reuters posted the same story on its website.
But the following day, Reuters came out with the real story. Goma was a data cleansing expert and was at the BBC for a job interview working with the IT department. "The mixup is being blamed on a young, inexperienced producer," said the Reuters video next to which was no correction on the previous day's story. The Guardian's article also does not have a correction.
The new wave of journalism in which being the first to report news overpowers the need to have accurate facts is hurting the quality of journalism the public receives. There are too many opinions instead of facts out in the online community, causing the actual events to be undermined.
In a letter to The Guardian a reader wrote, "The growth of blogs and online communities seems to be contributing plenty in the way of opinion, of which there’s already plenty and not much in the way of facts. This is creating a brand of journalism in which it doesn’t really matter if you get things wrong.”
People are hungry for information, but are often only offered opinions. Journalism may be losing its focus: to report the facts. Journalists need to be equally responsible in ensuring they produce news and information that has value. As PR professionals, we rely on our relationships with journalists to report accurate information and gain credibility for our clients. However, this relationship is becoming hindered because of pressures on editors and journalists to keep producing new content to make deadlines.
In his novel Flat Earth News, Nick Davies refers to the current state of global media as ‘churnalism,’ in which journalists are constantly trying to churn out stories at rapid speeds “Speed. The problems of churnalism have become even worse with the arrival of news websites-some of them staffed by specialist journalists; some of them by mainstream reporters who file copy for the site was well for their traditional outlets. For all of them, the possibility of filing their stories immediately has become an imperative to spend even less time on their work, even less time checking. Rapid repackaging takes over.”
As new technologies continue to emerge, it will be interesting to see the effects and pressures they have on journalism and the media industry. But as PR professionals, we can learn many lessons from journalists; one of the most important being to always do thorough research and present accurate facts. We also must appreciate the pressures journalists are under and help the relationship by giving well researched facts and knowledgeable spokespeople to achieve a positive outcome for the public.
For other PR lessons and more media videos visit:
Note: On April 8, 2010 Guy Kewney sadly passed away at age 63 after battling with bowel and liver cancer. He was one of the most influential writers of the technology world and had long stints with publications such as PC Magazine and Personal Computer World.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Demands of large companies ending stereotypical PR agency model
During this time of recession it seems that many large companies are taking their PR business elsewhere, to smaller agencies that have a lower price tag, but still deliver a quality service. This new phenomenon might just be a consequence of the economic downturn, but at the same time, we might also be in the midst of a new PR trend.
Mobile network giant Vodafone recently signed over all its accounts to Paratus, a ten-person agency that was selected after a competitive pitch from other larger agencies. Similarly Symantec, the largest maker of personal computer security software, hired Speed Communications in August to handle its six-figure corporate and enterprise PR brief for the UK and Ireland. And finally McCain Foods, the world’s largest producer of frozen-foods, signed Pitch PR in June to promote its sponsorship of UK Athletics. All these companies had the option to go with a larger agency but in the end chose the smaller firms. Just what is making small firms so appealing in comparison to large agencies and why are companies making the sudden switch?
When you typically think of a PR agency, you think of posh offices, attractive socializing females, schmoozing clients over lunches, often unnecessary extravagance, over the top and pulls out all the stops to impress its clients. All great, but the bells and whistles have to be paid for by someone – and that’s often client budgets or higher fees.
A handful of the top PR agencies grossed more than £130 billion globally in 2001. Impressive, yes, but in the end it’s the client who ends up paying more for all the extra, lavish, amenities and in a time when money is tight, finding the PR agency with the most economic benefit is a must for companies.
Naturally larger agencies also pride themselves on their ability to provide media relations, lobbying, event management, social media and other PR practice areas for companies, to make up their "integrated communications services" for their clients – but smaller companies are also offering all these services.
“Boutique” agencies are smaller and are typically less expensive for clients. Often they have a more detailed focus and expertise in certain industries and this business model seems to be thriving. These agencies are beginning to compete with large PR firms because they offer attractive budgeting options. New technologies have made the PR process so much more efficient that small companies can conduct PR just as well as large agencies – the Internet; customer relationship management systems; online media monitoring; cheaper, easy to use, high quality audio and video production tools; web design – all services now provided within small agency walls.
David Watson, senior Vice President of PR Boutiques International said in a letter to PR Week, “Importantly, it has never been easier to outsource non-core activity and plug into global markets through online communications and networking. Boutique PR firms are managed with the same rigour as big companies, and are succeeding worldwide.”
But even the “boutique” label for smaller agencies is just a fancy way of saying what they really are: a smaller company providing the same public relations services for companies wanting to gain publicity, build an image and be perceived positively in the public arena. Why not be proud of being a “small agency,” offering more cost effective, high quality PR services without making us sound like some sort of fashion house.
The primary driver for Symantec Corporation’s Dominic Cook is the flexibility offered by small agencies. “For those of us in-house relying heavily on external agency support, one of the key drivers in agency selection, particularly in tight budgetary conditions, is flexibility. The flexibility to move budgets around, to increase or decrease focus on social media or another piece of the PR puzzle, is vital and unfortunately many of the larger agencies find this difficult to cope with,” he says.
Companies may be turning to small agencies because they recognise they value the practitioners’ proficiency, flexibility and lower fees – rather than the unnecessary perks.
John Brice of the small U.S. based agency, Brice & Associates said, “Like doctors, lawyers, accountants and electricians, one good PR practitioner can get the job done well and generally do so at a more cost-effective price. A small agency can convene substantial marketing expertise as needed and not have to pass along any overhead to the client.” Flexible budgeting options and their deviation from the ‘typical’ PR agency traits may prove that these small agencies might just be the public relations industry’s new trend.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
"For the PR's out there who use death by newswires this is worth a read."
So tweets @LittleScotty aka Ashley Scott, the Northern Tech PR with a love for gaming, pies and gravy - although one wonders whether at the same time - and if so, one hopes that the game she's playing is Wii Fit.
She was referring to the research from Parker, Wayne & Kent that showed that nearly three quarters of PR people (72.1 per cent) use press release wires, but almost one in five of them (18.3 per cent) said that these services “very rarely” or “never” get coverage. Only one third (30.5 per cent) confidently claimed that they gained coverage “all the time” from these services. Unsurprisingly maybe, these respondents were generally very positive about the value of their release appearing on a news aggregator site or on electronic press release distribution services. But is that really "coverage" that can be reported back to clients?
Notfiona from PR blog TheSpinBin says, "When you're so enthusiastically shown clips on websites that boast brand names such as Business Week, Fox News, USA Today... remember, it is almost a dead cert that no reporter on those publications has ever read your story, let alone evaluated it and thought about endorsing you. It's just one of the growing breed of auto pickups: fine for Search Engine Optimisation…but is that the only reason you do PR?"
Well for one in ten PR people who use press release wires, that's primarily the reason they use the services.
So a journalist hasn't looked at the release, never mind edited it, worked with it, and selected it for publishing: so is it "coverage"?
Well according to many of the PRs surveyed in the report – probably not. Our public relations peers suggest three main criteria for “coverage”: appearing in trusted third party media that are channels or opinion-formers to the publics being targeted; an element of editorial input by a journalist; and the inclusion of key messages and company sources.
So are electronic press release wires value for money as ways to get coverage of the sort desired by the industry - and we hope its clients? Or have they been relegated to crude SEO tools? Moreover, can the PR industry claim that they get coverage when an unedited release appears on irrelevant websites that will very rarely be read by a client's target customers except with a very specific search or Google Alert for the name of the company featured in the release?
Take a look at the research - Press Release Wires - A Circulation without a Readership?.
She was referring to the research from Parker, Wayne & Kent that showed that nearly three quarters of PR people (72.1 per cent) use press release wires, but almost one in five of them (18.3 per cent) said that these services “very rarely” or “never” get coverage. Only one third (30.5 per cent) confidently claimed that they gained coverage “all the time” from these services. Unsurprisingly maybe, these respondents were generally very positive about the value of their release appearing on a news aggregator site or on electronic press release distribution services. But is that really "coverage" that can be reported back to clients?
Notfiona from PR blog TheSpinBin says, "When you're so enthusiastically shown clips on websites that boast brand names such as Business Week, Fox News, USA Today... remember, it is almost a dead cert that no reporter on those publications has ever read your story, let alone evaluated it and thought about endorsing you. It's just one of the growing breed of auto pickups: fine for Search Engine Optimisation…but is that the only reason you do PR?"
Well for one in ten PR people who use press release wires, that's primarily the reason they use the services.
So a journalist hasn't looked at the release, never mind edited it, worked with it, and selected it for publishing: so is it "coverage"?
Well according to many of the PRs surveyed in the report – probably not. Our public relations peers suggest three main criteria for “coverage”: appearing in trusted third party media that are channels or opinion-formers to the publics being targeted; an element of editorial input by a journalist; and the inclusion of key messages and company sources.
So are electronic press release wires value for money as ways to get coverage of the sort desired by the industry - and we hope its clients? Or have they been relegated to crude SEO tools? Moreover, can the PR industry claim that they get coverage when an unedited release appears on irrelevant websites that will very rarely be read by a client's target customers except with a very specific search or Google Alert for the name of the company featured in the release?
Take a look at the research - Press Release Wires - A Circulation without a Readership?.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Truth and Lies in PR and Media
It is foolish to believe that articles in media are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is also imprudent to say that everything in the media is lies or untrue. The people that say, "I don't believe anything in the papers," can't possibly be right. They may not agree with the content of an article, and they may have a very healthy scepticism about the content of the media in general, but most people only know that Barak Obama is the President of the United States via the media having not ever seen him in the flesh.
Nick Davies, author of Flat Earth News, argues that journalists have become dependent on the public relations industry to such an extent that it is harming the media’s balance and objectivity in news reporting. Journalism’s primary task, says Davies, should be “to filter out falsehood” but journalism has now “become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.” The easy access to information in today’s society, as noted by Frederick Williams- author of The New Communications- coupled with the rise of electronic communications and the media’s recent obsession with providing a constant stream of news, has meant that journalists are under ever-weightier pressure to file an ever greater number of stories. With this increased pressure, and given how email has made it easy, quick and affordable to disseminate press releases, Davies argues that the newsroom has become like a factory production line, with reporters’ role now being to “churn” out an uninterrupted stream of stories.
The change in the reporter’s role has had a striking impact on the reliability of the British news media. In a recent study of 2,000 news stories in several major national newspapers, researchers at Cardiff University found that only 12 per cent of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. Four fifths of the stories were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Journalism is easily influenced by PR, so if reporters are failing adequately to check their facts, then there are implications for the PR industry. The media has never before been so dependent on news stories created or influenced by PR. So, while a PR person’s job is primarily to provide information and opinion, they are in an almost uniquely powerful position when it comes to influencing the veracity of news that appears in the media. The industry as a whole must take care not to abuse this power, and be seen actively to contribute to the truthfulness of news stories. This leaves aside public relations’ ethical duty to the wider public. But that ethical duty to the public goes further than merely disseminating accurate and truthful information. If PROs have a duty to the public at all, then they must also be committed to influencing the media to ensure that what appears therein is truthful. Journalism and PR are two professions supposed to keep the public informed.
Over the course of the autumn and winter of 2009, more than 444 PR professionals from a wide variety of organisations and consultancies were invited to take part in an online poll to establish their opinions on the importance of honesty in public relations and the media. There are limitations to the poll. It is an online poll conducted in isolation- it analyses the opinions of a single industry's practitioners on the truthfulness of their own profession and on that of the media. Also, the construction of the questions encouraged respondents to take a very absolutist approach to the ethics of communication and lying - you either lied, so "Yes", or you did not, "No". In an absolutist sense, white lies are still lies, and we should be aware that if the industry absolutist in its defence - stating that its practitioners never lie - then they must also be absolutist in their communications ethics.
The results reveal a streak of cynicism within the PR industry, with the vast majority of PROs claiming personal probity, yet criticising their industry peers. Although 88 per cent of PR practitioners say they have never made a claim or disseminated information that they knew to be false, 73 per cent believe that public relations professionals lie in the course of their work. This huge disparity in perceived ethical conduct suggests that people in the PR industry have a very low opinion of their own industry. That said, 96 per cent of PR people agreed with the statement that they regarded themselves as fundamentally honest (55% "agree", 41% "totally agree").
When considering the media environment as a whole: presenting truth in an absolutist sense - as in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - is very difficult to attain whether by journalists, sub-editors, editors, advertising executives, publishers and public relations practioners. So if truth in this sense is unobtainable, the currency of the media can be seen in general as fact, opinion and interpretation of facts. Or maybe "angles".
There are often many unconsidered facts, opinions and interpretations that do not appear in articles, however dressing up lies as fact is of course morally reprehensible. Lies do appear in the media from time to time - unquoted "sources", someone in an online forum and maybe even journalists themselves. That does not mean that everything that appears in the media - either from a PR operation or a journalist is a lie. Both industries must necessarily provide fact because without those facts, trust as a source of information will be lost very quickly.
One does not need to write an essay on ethics to conclude that public relations, like journalism, has a duty to wider society to tell the truth. When a journalist checks facts, and puts the time into investigating an article in an unbiased manner, this gives more value to the article - both to society and often to the PR operation itself if the article or subject matter is truly useful to society.
Deservedly or not, the PR industry has a reputation among the public for spin and untruthfulness, and the survey results show that this perception is current even among PR people themselves. The issue of truth needs to be considered more by the industry rather than just through this simple survey. It needs to get to a point where PR people can be confident that they and their peers are acting ethically. When there is confidence about the ethics of people working in the industry, that ethical confidence will be communicated to critics. If public relations practitioners are not truthful, this threatens any genuine attempts to foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships with publics.
Read the full report: Facts, Angles, Opinions And Interpretations - How Much Is Truth And Lies In The Media
Nick Davies, author of Flat Earth News, argues that journalists have become dependent on the public relations industry to such an extent that it is harming the media’s balance and objectivity in news reporting. Journalism’s primary task, says Davies, should be “to filter out falsehood” but journalism has now “become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda.” The easy access to information in today’s society, as noted by Frederick Williams- author of The New Communications- coupled with the rise of electronic communications and the media’s recent obsession with providing a constant stream of news, has meant that journalists are under ever-weightier pressure to file an ever greater number of stories. With this increased pressure, and given how email has made it easy, quick and affordable to disseminate press releases, Davies argues that the newsroom has become like a factory production line, with reporters’ role now being to “churn” out an uninterrupted stream of stories.
The change in the reporter’s role has had a striking impact on the reliability of the British news media. In a recent study of 2,000 news stories in several major national newspapers, researchers at Cardiff University found that only 12 per cent of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. Four fifths of the stories were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Journalism is easily influenced by PR, so if reporters are failing adequately to check their facts, then there are implications for the PR industry. The media has never before been so dependent on news stories created or influenced by PR. So, while a PR person’s job is primarily to provide information and opinion, they are in an almost uniquely powerful position when it comes to influencing the veracity of news that appears in the media. The industry as a whole must take care not to abuse this power, and be seen actively to contribute to the truthfulness of news stories. This leaves aside public relations’ ethical duty to the wider public. But that ethical duty to the public goes further than merely disseminating accurate and truthful information. If PROs have a duty to the public at all, then they must also be committed to influencing the media to ensure that what appears therein is truthful. Journalism and PR are two professions supposed to keep the public informed.
Over the course of the autumn and winter of 2009, more than 444 PR professionals from a wide variety of organisations and consultancies were invited to take part in an online poll to establish their opinions on the importance of honesty in public relations and the media. There are limitations to the poll. It is an online poll conducted in isolation- it analyses the opinions of a single industry's practitioners on the truthfulness of their own profession and on that of the media. Also, the construction of the questions encouraged respondents to take a very absolutist approach to the ethics of communication and lying - you either lied, so "Yes", or you did not, "No". In an absolutist sense, white lies are still lies, and we should be aware that if the industry absolutist in its defence - stating that its practitioners never lie - then they must also be absolutist in their communications ethics.
The results reveal a streak of cynicism within the PR industry, with the vast majority of PROs claiming personal probity, yet criticising their industry peers. Although 88 per cent of PR practitioners say they have never made a claim or disseminated information that they knew to be false, 73 per cent believe that public relations professionals lie in the course of their work. This huge disparity in perceived ethical conduct suggests that people in the PR industry have a very low opinion of their own industry. That said, 96 per cent of PR people agreed with the statement that they regarded themselves as fundamentally honest (55% "agree", 41% "totally agree").
When considering the media environment as a whole: presenting truth in an absolutist sense - as in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - is very difficult to attain whether by journalists, sub-editors, editors, advertising executives, publishers and public relations practioners. So if truth in this sense is unobtainable, the currency of the media can be seen in general as fact, opinion and interpretation of facts. Or maybe "angles".
There are often many unconsidered facts, opinions and interpretations that do not appear in articles, however dressing up lies as fact is of course morally reprehensible. Lies do appear in the media from time to time - unquoted "sources", someone in an online forum and maybe even journalists themselves. That does not mean that everything that appears in the media - either from a PR operation or a journalist is a lie. Both industries must necessarily provide fact because without those facts, trust as a source of information will be lost very quickly.
One does not need to write an essay on ethics to conclude that public relations, like journalism, has a duty to wider society to tell the truth. When a journalist checks facts, and puts the time into investigating an article in an unbiased manner, this gives more value to the article - both to society and often to the PR operation itself if the article or subject matter is truly useful to society.
Deservedly or not, the PR industry has a reputation among the public for spin and untruthfulness, and the survey results show that this perception is current even among PR people themselves. The issue of truth needs to be considered more by the industry rather than just through this simple survey. It needs to get to a point where PR people can be confident that they and their peers are acting ethically. When there is confidence about the ethics of people working in the industry, that ethical confidence will be communicated to critics. If public relations practitioners are not truthful, this threatens any genuine attempts to foster productive and mutually beneficial relationships with publics.
Read the full report: Facts, Angles, Opinions And Interpretations - How Much Is Truth And Lies In The Media
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
The Ads That Dare Not Speak Their Name
Remember Phorm, the evil data pimps who wanted to collect browsing data on Internet users so that they could deliver targeted advertising? Well, yes, of course you do. It was only a few months ago that the company effectively folded in the UK, having been battered by a succession of staggeringly stupid PR blunders, leaving their investors seriously out of pocket.
So the world and its dog can breathe a sigh of relief that it's safe from this invidious form of advertising, which threatened to usher in a cataclysm unequalled in the annals of human history, surpassing the plagues of Egypt, the eruption of Krakatoa, the rise of Jedward etc. etc.
Er, actually, no. A little-known Internet firm called Google is doing exactly the same thing, with nary a murmur of discontent from the brave warriors who brought Phorm to its knees. And we're not talking about Google's gentlemanly habit of routinely reading Gmail users' emails so that they can serve them with targeted ads. No, it goes further than that.
Some of our more technically literate readers may know that the world's largest text ad broker has, for ages, served up different search results for users logged into its services, such as Google Calendar or Gmail. These search results are tailored to users' previous browsing behaviour, so if you spend a lot of time on bbc.co.uk/sport, Google search results will place this web page higher up the list when it's asked to search for "sport". This, of course, is an entirely selfless service from Google that helps users gain the most relevant results - and it's only coincidental that it helps them to make more money from behaviourally targeted ads.
No problem with that - Google fanbois presumably read the terms and conditions when they sign up to these services (doesn't everyone?). But now Google is "personalising" search results for any user, anywhere, regardless of whether they're signed in to Google or not, through cookies placed on unwitting users' computers.
We've covered behavioural targeting before and, while we don't think it's inherently evil, we do believe that it requires a delicate approach, along with rigorous adherence to best practice procedures to ensure that users are well-informed and are offered a clear choice about whether they want their browsing profiled. Google haven't gone out of their way to publicise their service; nor to explain how to turn it off (it is, naturally, turned on my default).
If companies continue to implement behavioural targeting in a sly, underhand way - as though it were something to be ashamed about - then one can hardly blame the public for being suspicious of it. Instead of cloaking it in the depths of a terms and conditions form, companies like Phorm and Google should communicate openly on the benefits of targeted ads and offers.
One final question remains: why has privacy campaigner Alex Hanff - the single-handed scourge of Phorm and NebuAd, whose brave and lonely battle against these Internet behemoths ended with a victory that brought dragons and St George to mind - been so silent on this issue? Alex, where are you?
Postscript: Google's CEO Eric Schmidt yesterday trotted out that favourite line of civil-liberties-deniers the world round: "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." (©Richard Littlejohn / David Blunkett). How this statement sits with Google Chrome's infamous Incognito function - which hides your porn viewing from other users - remains unclear.
So the world and its dog can breathe a sigh of relief that it's safe from this invidious form of advertising, which threatened to usher in a cataclysm unequalled in the annals of human history, surpassing the plagues of Egypt, the eruption of Krakatoa, the rise of Jedward etc. etc.
Er, actually, no. A little-known Internet firm called Google is doing exactly the same thing, with nary a murmur of discontent from the brave warriors who brought Phorm to its knees. And we're not talking about Google's gentlemanly habit of routinely reading Gmail users' emails so that they can serve them with targeted ads. No, it goes further than that.
Some of our more technically literate readers may know that the world's largest text ad broker has, for ages, served up different search results for users logged into its services, such as Google Calendar or Gmail. These search results are tailored to users' previous browsing behaviour, so if you spend a lot of time on bbc.co.uk/sport, Google search results will place this web page higher up the list when it's asked to search for "sport". This, of course, is an entirely selfless service from Google that helps users gain the most relevant results - and it's only coincidental that it helps them to make more money from behaviourally targeted ads.
No problem with that - Google fanbois presumably read the terms and conditions when they sign up to these services (doesn't everyone?). But now Google is "personalising" search results for any user, anywhere, regardless of whether they're signed in to Google or not, through cookies placed on unwitting users' computers.
We've covered behavioural targeting before and, while we don't think it's inherently evil, we do believe that it requires a delicate approach, along with rigorous adherence to best practice procedures to ensure that users are well-informed and are offered a clear choice about whether they want their browsing profiled. Google haven't gone out of their way to publicise their service; nor to explain how to turn it off (it is, naturally, turned on my default).
If companies continue to implement behavioural targeting in a sly, underhand way - as though it were something to be ashamed about - then one can hardly blame the public for being suspicious of it. Instead of cloaking it in the depths of a terms and conditions form, companies like Phorm and Google should communicate openly on the benefits of targeted ads and offers.
One final question remains: why has privacy campaigner Alex Hanff - the single-handed scourge of Phorm and NebuAd, whose brave and lonely battle against these Internet behemoths ended with a victory that brought dragons and St George to mind - been so silent on this issue? Alex, where are you?
Postscript: Google's CEO Eric Schmidt yesterday trotted out that favourite line of civil-liberties-deniers the world round: "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." (©Richard Littlejohn / David Blunkett). How this statement sits with Google Chrome's infamous Incognito function - which hides your porn viewing from other users - remains unclear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)