Welcome to MyRagan Forum. Browse through any forum, sign in or register here and you'll be on your way to creating your own discussions and posting replies for the whole community to see :D
I don't know. There are days I am personally insulted by what has happened to the business and the direction it's headed. Then there are days I wash my hands and wish that people like Geoff get exactly the world they hope for.
Stop the press (releases). Wait just a minute. I'm to be concerned because the purity of my professional genetic material is being compromised, and the prophet warning me of this impending doom is the self-styled "strumpet" of the PR profession?
How ironic is that?
Amanda's argument may have some theoritical validity, but in practice it appears to me somewhat akin to fundamentalist religious freaks warning that unless I get back to the way of the Word then I'm guilty of helping to trash the "public interest" and hastening the downfall of civilization as we know it. Uh. I don't think so.
Sexual innuendo aside, Amanda's core argument seems to be that in bypassing the established news media and taking messages directly to audiences, those of the PR world are somehow transgressing against a universal law that proffers a kind and benevolent news media mechanism to protect the weak and innocent. As long as 60 Minutes, CNN and The New York Times are there to protect me, I shall not worry.
Yeah, right.
What's next? We tell the villagers to light the torches, take up the pitchforks and storm Mr. Edelman's castle to prevent further tampering with the Laws of Nature?
Per her recent post: "Paid advocacy without an independent judge (the media) will never work."
1. For the record, the name "strumpette" is purposefully (and I had hoped obviously) ironic. That's the point.
2. As to: "...in practice it appears somewhat akin to fundamentalist religious freaks warning that unless I get back to the way of the Word then I'm guilty of helping to trash the 'public interest' and hastening the downfall of civilization as we know it. Uh. I don't think so."
Okay... then sit and watch. Or read. AGAIN, I suggest " The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture" (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Amateur-Internet-killing-culture/dp/0385520808)
3. "Amanda's core argument seems to be that in bypassing the established news media and taking messages directly to audiences, those of the PR world are somehow transgressing against a universal law that proffers a kind and benevolent news media mechanism to protect the weak and innocent. As long as 60 Minutes, CNN and The New York Times are there to protect me, I shall not worry. Yeah, right."
Well, excuse me but if history is any measure, it does happen to be right. Today, there are all too numerous examples of independent institutional standards that we rely on to maintain an orderly society and business marketplace. Do we need speed limits? Do we need drug laws? Etc. Let's let the market decide as you suggest. Silly.
4. "What's next? We tell the villagers to light the torches, take up the pitchforks and storm Mr. Edelman's castle to prevent further tampering with the Laws of Nature?"
No. Actually, this would be an anti mob movement. It is for the powers that be -- our representative governance -- to restore order. Whether you want to believe it or not, you are going to see the government step in. VNRs?! Forgetaboutit. That's just the beginning.
5. "Per her recent post: 'Paid advocacy without an independent judge (the media) will never work.' My question: Who judges the judges?
We do. That's what institutions area all about.
Here... read this: http://strumpette.com/archives/378-Citizen-Player-Program-to-Revolutionize-ML-Baseball.html . That's the farce you passively promote.
Amanda, you make a compelling point, but there's an additional wrinkle we need to consider before jumping into bed with news media to be our third-party advocate:
Journalists are starting down the slippery slope of advocacy. I'm not talking about FNC - I'm talking about evening anchors who want to editorialize, about Reuters and AP stories with assertions presented as fact, and about fluff presented as serious journalism.
Our erstwhile "protector" and third-party endorser is pissing away its moral high ground, and THEN who will be our filter?
I’m sorry, but I think the whole citizen-journalist, editor-free world, journalists being displaced thing is a bit overblown. There will always be a place for credible sources of news and information backed by real live journalists abiding by real standards. It may take different forms than it takes today but credibility, standards and quality will always have value and rise to the top, even in a sea of online B.S. As for PR, yes, there are more tactics, more ways to communicate, and a greater need for standards for how we adopt and use new technologies, but the traditional third-party credibility offered by PR will continue to be an important part of our profession. The only thing that scared me in this discussion was Amanda’s comment about the government “stepping in”….that’s the LAST thing we need.
Roboman - I'm with you, government intervention is a recipe for disaster.
However, as a former newsie, you have a LOT to worry about. News is losing its credibility for a number of reasons:
1) All fluff no stuff
2) Top-down decisions to go for "context" and "nuance" instead of reporting facts.
3) Bottom-up the reporters on the street are, for the most part, kids. Collectively, they have Malignant Narcissism and no backstop of experience to tell them when they've gone too far.
The modern news consumer now has more choice than ever before. That's the good news. The bad is that those tiny niches are marketing to their audiences by telling them what they want to hear. It's bad enough that NewsMax and DailyKos are the primary sources of political info for the fringes. The incoming generation sees them as no different than traditional outlets. Worse yet, NewsMax and Kos can look at the same event through very different lenses, and you'd wonder if they witnessed the same thing.
Do a poll, and ask high school kids who their favorite news anchor is. The #1 answer is "Oprah."
It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Direct communication with publics isn't only an internal function. What if the media ignores you? And even with media coverage, the best strategy is integration of multiple tactics. Media relations is just that: a tactic. Public relations is vastly more involved. Credibility comes from the media and other third parties, yes. But it also comes from an organization's behavior, reputation and DIRECT communication with publics. Clients pay for that too.
With all due respect profpenning... that's hooey. Bottom line: if the media ignore you, you are likely full of donkey dust.
With regard to PR being VASTLY more involved, that's the stuff of academics and not RL, I'm afraid. The history of PR is the function of dealing with publics through the mass media filter. That's fact.
As far as clients paying you for various other DM tactics... they pay for boiler room operations where old ladies put lipstick marks on envelops, too. By your definition that's PR. By my definition, I say that's what the business is becoming sadly.
What happens when everyone in print media decides, screw it, let's just go into PR where the money and hours are better and the owners of those newspapers decide golfing or buying minor league baseball teams is more important than journalism and suddenly newspapers start shuttering.
Before this idea is shouted down as utter silliness, I'd like to point out that we continue to hear about integration and this idea of new media won't kill old media.
Okay, but what if it does?
I bet Louis XVI and his cronies never thought the mobs would win the day in France, only that they might have to make concessions. And, well, we know what happened there.
So, what if suddenly things get so bad midsize dailies start closing their doors. It starts in Charlotte and Providence and spreads to large dailies like the Miami Herald and the Philadelphia Inquirer and before we know it The Tribune Company topples and brings with it the Chicago Tribune and LA Times. Then the NY Times and even Wall Street Journal close shop.
I mean what if ... some of the most extreme social media evangelizers might celebrate this--dance on the graves of the old media establishments. Before long, though, everyone would realize the maniacs are running the asylum and (switching metaphors yet again) like the French Revolution there's utter chaos.
I don't think people will lose their heads, but imagine a world without newspapers--okay got it? Now imagine a world without newspapers AND Web sites ... who will the bloggers link to for credibility sake when they want to rant about something in the news?
The faces of PR, marketing and advertising are changing. Technology has opened up new avenues to reach a target audience. Opened, but not replaced.
Blogs, in particular, have a role in dissemenating information. It's a great forum for an exchange of opinion. But readers know they have to determine fact from fiction. A corporate web blog is viewed differently than Jane Doe's family blog and differently than John Doe's ranting blog at some retailer he hates. It's up to the consumer to decide what to / or not to believe.
And like those who predicted newspapers were on their way out as the Internet first evolved, there is a place for each new medium. And we all still have a fondness for some authority figure (aka news media) to gather the days happenings and share the facts - whether online, in print or via the radio or television.
PR as we know it isn't dead or dying. It's just evolving.
I totally agree as to your assessment that the new is not replacing but adding to. Absolutely.
But your assertion that readers know they have to determine fact from fiction is... ALL WRONG. The more crap there is, the less anyone can discern quality period. If G-d herself came back as one of us today... no one would know. Trust me.
Amanda and I had a short version of this discussion on my blog last week, following my return from Edelman's New Media Academic Summit. Sean gave you the link in an early comment. Here it is again:
http://toughsledding.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/lessons-from-the-edelman-new-media-conference-heres-what-mattered-to-me/
I see more of the same in this discussion, and I've come to the same conclusion: The writers of Strumpette and I define public relations very, very differently. Like it or not (and I LOVE it), MSM messages are becoming less and less import to many of our constituents. It's far more efficient to go directly to audiences without having the messages filtered (and often mangled) by journalists, many of whom -- as Ike points out -- are kids. When I was doing PR (I'm now teaching it) I leaned heavily on F2F tactics and produced great results. Social media allows us to expand on F2F tactics and on the conversation. How can anyone ignore such an opportunity?
Under Strumpette's definition PR, the omnipotent MSM rule. Well, just try reaching anyone under age 30 using that model. Some may not like it, but the revolution is underway. Richard Edelman understands it. Ultimately we all will.
