Children, it's ok to be in PR. Just be ethical.

When things go wrong in politics, things tend to go right for the media. Political corruption lead stories and exposés (local and national) can be the stuff on which journalism careers are made.

Because of this duality, it's no surprise that a well-respected (and well-followed) journalism academic and commentator, Jeff Jarvis, would chime in on the recent #bridgegate scandel in New Jersey. Quick recap: NJ Gov. Chris Christie fired a deputy chief of staff as part of some fallout over what apparently was a politically motivated George Washington Bridge toll booth and lane closure issue.

On Friday evening, Jarvis was tweeting screen captures from released government staff emails involving early reporting and a Wall Street Journal inquiry into Fort Lee toll booth topic that lead to "stonewalling." Most of his commentary was about what one would expect from a journalism associate professor.

However, one of his tweets raised the hairs on the back of my neck when he wrote: "Children, this is why you don't want to be a flack for a living."

Children, this is why you don't want to be a flack for a living. pic.twitter.com/nmaIVQWYJ1
— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) January 11, 2014

Well thanks, Jeff. </sarcasm>

Let's just go ahead and paint the PR profession with the same damaging brushstroke because some political staffers (perhaps with questionable ethics) wrote some internal emails trying to figure out their next steps. Of course they should know by now that electronic communication within government agencies falls under FOIA rules and tend to eventually see the light of day. Duh.

What bugged me is that Jarvis picked this episode to flippantly dismiss thoughts by students of going into public relations, strategic communications or really any career in which one might be referred to as a "flack" for an organization. To be clear, I do not believe for a second that his remark will be the deciding factor for a student exploring the field of mass communications to scoff at PR. To me, it's just sad (infuriating?) reminder that our profession gets a bum rap.

It's up to us as PR professionals to practice strategic communications in an ethical manner. We should be among the chorus of calls for transparency, honesty, and open communication. I'll leave you with the charge given to us from the PRSA Code of Ethics. The Code advises PR professionals to:

• Protect and advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information.
• Foster informed decision making through open communication.
• Protect confidential and private information.
• Promote healthy and fair competition among professionals.
• Avoid conflicts of interest.
• Work to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.

Perhaps even academics like Jeff Jarvis can appreciate their future hacks working with ethical flacks. (tongue-firmly-in-cheek!) Or at the very least, I hope he understands that ethical PR pros actually do exist.

Photo credit: tracylee via Flickr Creative Commons

Ft. Worth @StarTelegram requires Facebook for comments; good for discourse, bad for trolls

In a move that I hope will send some of those online trolls to cower under their bridges away from the light, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram announced this week that they will now require users to log in to Facebook to use their commenting system.

In his announcement, S-T executive editor, Jim Witt explained that the reason was pretty simple: "Facebook requires account holders to use their names, and we believe that anyone who wants to contribute to our public forums should put their name on it."

He then went on to bolster the argument for signed (in) online comments because of the difference in discourse between those that were anonymous vs those that come in with real names attached.

"In signed letters for our print editions, writers make their points using reasoned and usually reasonable arguments. But online, comment threads too often devolve into a cesspool of name-calling. On some stories, we are forced to turn off the commenting feature because the language becomes too offensive. 

"In talking to readers, I’ve found that many have been discouraged from commenting because they are turned off by the nastiness."

I believe this is a smart move for my local paper and one that hopefully will raise the intelligence quotient a bit on stories that matter to communities across DFW covered in the paper. It seems to me the S-T recognizes that for at least the near future, Facebook doesn't appear to be going anywhere. And other media outlets use it as their commenting system of choice for some of the very same reasons as outlined in the S_t announcement.  

I get this 100% RT @MonicaNagyFWST: Why @startelegram wants you to use Facebook. http://t.co/OMACdyaOsJ
— Torrey McGraw (@torreymcgraw) September 12, 2013

Why is this important for PR? Since a function of PR includes media relations, it's part of our job to know how the stories are getting developed, sourced and told. We should also know to whom we connect a journalist in order to provide the trusted source they need. (Hint: it's often not the PR person.) We've seen that a growing number of journalists are finding and using sources from social channels.

"...51 per cent of journalists worldwide say they use microblogs (e.g. Twitter, Facebook and Weibo) to gather new stories – provided the source behind those accounts is known and trusted by them (2012 figure, 54 per cent). As was the case in 2012, reliance on these sources falls dramatically when the sources are not known to the journalist: 25 per cent say they source stories in this way." [Oriella PR Network Global Digital Journalism Study 2013]

The study also indicates that in certain respects, a journalist's success on stories now tends to be measured in the number of unique visits, number of views, increase in social followers, likes/tweets on articles, and number of online comments along with advertising revenue and exclusive features.

I hope our journalist friends over at the Star-Telegram will take this shift to Facebook commenting as an opportunity to engage in what could be ongoing dialogue on the important issues in the community. It is not out of the realm of possibility to have a trusted source from within the organization chime in through article comments (if it's in the best interest of the organization s/he is representing) to provide clarifications, corrections, or contextual additions. This might give pause to some especially for those who don't like to mix work life with home/community life. I believe we've reached the point that our online professional and personal selves are blends now and we should treat online communication as such.

TL;DR
The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram now requires Facebook for article comments. It's a good thing and online trolls beware.


Photo credit: Doug Wildman via Flickr Creative Commons

School PR and the News Media - Ken Haseley, NSPRA 2010

Image by asterix611 via Flickr

Note: This is cross-posted over on Shane Haggerty's blog, Social Learning Lab.
-----
Last week I attended the National School Public Relations Association 2010 Seminar. In addition to speaking during my brief stay I also took away some great insights from some respected communicators. One such speaker was Ken Haseley from The Ammerman Experience. Haseley gave a session entitled The News Media Today: Ally or Adversary?

In his session, Haseley touched on the shift from the news media being a public service to being more about profit and entertainment. He even pointed out that to a degree the news today is delivered as theater with reporters/anchors as the stars (think high graphics, dramatic music, and celebrity journalists on location, like Anderson Cooper from CNN.) He spoke about creating allies and how to handle the adversarial relationship school PR professionals tend to have with the media. I have attended Ken's sessions before on a variety of topics so I knew his would be one not to miss.

Important take-aways from The News Media Today: Ally or Adversary?

Today's news media:

• Expect to have more contact with junior-level journalists. 
• Expect more errors or inconsistencies
• Communication pros need to do more hand-holding and listen more closely. (Example: During a phone interview, listen to how the reporter sums up your quotes and especially if there's anything that seems to still be confusing at the end.)
• While the newsrooms may be shrinking, the news landscape is still expanding. Journalists have even greater levels of expectations today in reporting and content production.

Creating Allies:

• Recognize the PR and media symbiotic relationship.
• Think in terms of marketing and build relationships.
• Remember business etiquette. (Example: It's so important for call backs. It's highly frustrating for a journalist to have to wait on you to get back with them. Call back even if you don't have the answer at the time.)
• You will gain greater confidence (and competence) with media training.

Handling Adversaries:

• Don't pick a fight with the media. (The old adage is still true, Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel)
• Learn how to just say no. (Sometimes it's ok to decline an interview request. This works when the story is not about your organization or it's a round-up piece that doesn't rely on your involvement. Say, "thank you, we've decided to pass on this one. Don't forget about us in the future." You still need to call them back.)
• Have a straight-forward approach. Don't waste a reporter's time. They'll remember you for that too.
• To fix errors in reporting you can either ignore it or take action. If you take action, Haseley suggests
  1.) Call the reporter to point out the error.
  2.) Ask for a correction.
  3.) Call the editor or news director
  4.) Strategically use letters to the editor or even paid advertising if necessary.
• Mend fences. You never know when those adversarial reporters are going to wind up as communications and PR colleagues in the future.

In addition to his presentation, Haseley was gracious enough to spend a couple of minutes to share some thoughts for a brief video:

Bad PR move: A "touchy" subject

From time to time I come across an example of how not to do PR and think to myself, yikes, that's not a good way to handle (fill in the blank). The key being that I just think about it and move on to other things in my head.

However, this one just bothered me and is worth pointing out as just a bad public relations move.

A hospital's community relations director uses a ridiculous touching tactic to try to get rid of a TV reporter that showed up prior to the start of a community meeting. The reporter was working on a story about a hospital's gift fund. Here's the bizarre exchange:


The story making the rounds in the social-sphere being called hilarious, creepy, best local news video of the year, and more.

Personally, I think it's just stupid and sad. Stupid because it should never have gotten that far. It's one thing to attempt to run interference in order to get the meeting started and try to schedule a more appropriate interview time. It's just poor form to not come up with anything else besides the reporter's apparent phobia for being touched (For the record, the reporter uses the overly aggressive ambush-style interview approach which is questionable as well.) It's just sad because it further perpetuates the caricature image of a smarmy PR persona.

I like this comment from someone on the SF Weekly blog:

"... I understand that reporters like to antagonize individuals to provoke an unpleasant response, but a professional communications director should know to keep his cool and not get drawn into a confrontation."

What do you think? The comments are yours.

Four PR tactics I hope you never have to use

Working in a public school district presents a variety of communication challenges, both good and bad. Most of them occur during the school year and mostly involve explaining administrative, student, financial, or facility situations and decisions.

Unfortunately, for our district, a recent challenge involved the death of the newly retired superintendent and it happened over the summer.

Losing a high-profile community leader

The Mansfield ISD community was shocked to learn last week of the tragic accident that took the life of the district's former superintendent, Mr. Vernon Newsom. Newsom, who retired June 30 from the District, died from injuries he sustained in a motorcycle accident while on his first post-retirement vacation in South Dakota with his wife.

As a way for me to process my grief, I wanted to take an opportunity to share the reinforced or learned tactics from this somber communications experience: 

1. Use an online press release as a resource page on the deceased to be updated as often as needed - In the first hours after learning of the accident and making basic information available to staff, we went into information-gathering mode and worked to prepare a press release. As new information became available such as funeral services and memorial opportunities, they were added to the page so our media friends could update their stories and the community could keep up with the situation. We had our current superintendent available for media interviews, provided copies of Mr. Newsom's biography as well as digital photos on cd and on the page. (If you provide photos, make sure they are high-resolution.) [related tweet]
   
   
2. Turn a blog post into a memorial tribute forum - Our current superintendent (who incidently had been on the job officially for 22 days when the accident occurred) sat in my office and dictated a blog post that included an invitation for readers to comment with their thoughts and memories of our former leader. This turned out to be a very useful tool. The memorial post became the place where people could actually do something while we waited on final decisions for services. I think the post provided a much needed outlet to share what they were thinking and feeling. It was heart-warming to see so many people contribute comments. As of this writing, we've had 76 comments on the post. [related tweet]
   
   
3. Be prepared to run a live video stream of funeral services - On the morning of the funeral, our communications department was charged with the request from the family to see what it would take to provide a live video feed from the funeral service. Thanks to the skills and quick work by our multimedia specialist and a co-worker from the technology department, we were able to provide live video using a hastily setup ustream channel. I don't recommend trying to set something like this up on the fly without properly testing it. I am very thankful it worked for us so an additional 350 people were able see the service. [related tweet]
   
   
4. Set up a single pool shooter to cover the funeral for media -We have some great media friends in the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. One of them is Giles Hudson (assignment editor for the local CBS affiliate) who worked with me and agreed to provide a pool shooter for the funeral. What that meant for us is that we only had to have one news station's camera in the church instead of the four or five that it would have taken for all of major news stations to cover this high-profile funeral. [my related tweet]
   

Final thoughts

Our communications department is blessed with a great amount of latitude and administrative support, so the tactics didn't have to be sold to anyone.

We were very open about the situation from the beginning with our community using as many different communication channels as possible. I think this openness contributed to the positive response and out-pouring of suppport for the district. Over 1,200 people attended the funeral services and I think having a limited disturbance by the media was well-appreciated. Every journalist I spoke with about the situation gave their condolences and a few even had difficulty holding back their own tears. It's ok to be human.

Going through the different stages of this horrible chapter in our district's history has been a good reminder that through it all, no matter what your profession, life is precious.

Did I forget anything? What would you add to the short list of tactics? The comments are yours.

Obfuscation vs. PR's legitimate role

Image by stonehouse_ via Flickr

Our local PRSA chapter recently held a luncheon with a panel made up of publishers/editors of local weeklies in an attempt to hear how they were doing financially and how PR people and journalists could work together on news stories.

What attendees received was a peek at the reality for these journalists:

From the GFW PRSA Blog -
During the Q&A, Lee Newquist, publisher of Fort Worth Weekly, was asked how PR practitioners could be of the most value to the weeklies. As part of a longer response, Newquist answered, “PR companies, at least on the journalism side of what we do, are problematic because they’re in between (us and) the person with the real answer. I don’t want to talk to a PR person whose sole role in their career is to spin it and make it sound good."

Blake Ovard, managing editor of The Star Group weeklies, echoed: “All of the cities have a PIO, and their job is to keep you from getting the story, so they don’t understand why I don’t want to talk to them. They say, ‘Well, I have all your information.’”

I wish I could have attended the luncheon.

I did, however, interact with a number of fellow PRSA members who did attend as well as follow along some of the quotes from Twitter.

I think what seemed to ruffle the feathers of some in attendance was what has come to be seen as the typical broad-stroked summation from journalists that PR people block the news gathering process. This is simply not the case, at least not always. Are there PR people who do a horrible job for their organizations or clients. Yep. But the same is true in any industry (up to and including journalism.)

Speaking from a communication professional's perspective, it is true that for public information officers, sometimes we have to get to the information tucked away inside our government agencies. We understand and appreciate the journalists would prefer to speak directly with the internal expert and source and to be quite honest, in most cases this is our preference too.

However, there are times when we cannot provide information for privacy, personnel protection, and other various legal reasons beyond our and the organization's control. It is highly frustrating when these actions are then turned around and interpreted as obfuscation when our hands are simply tied.

Perhaps the panelists didn’t fully appreciate the host organization is made up of PR professionals who hold to a PRSA Code of Ethics,which state in part:

HONESTY - We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.

LOYALTY - We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest.

FAIRNESS - We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media, and the general public. We respect all opinions and support the right of free expression.

If you hope to reach your community and your community members find local weeklies useful, then the strategy dictates paying attention to and functioning in tandem with these media outlets. If your community does not find local weeklies relevant, move on.

Perhaps our organizations would be better served if public relations professionals work on being better as well as look to what could be in store for our profession and for journalists.

Related articles by Richie Escovedo with Zemanta

• Looking for the ethical intersections
• 5 Ways a Community Manager Can Help Your Media Outlet
• Journalism vs PR: Head-knockin' issues
• Journalism vs PR: The dialog begins
• J-School to Public Relations: Selling Out or Buying In?