Don't bite the hand that feeds you

In today's Media Guardian, Damien McCrystal continues the discussion on the hot topic of the moment - that is, the relationship between journalism and public relations.

The article, headlined "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", is a well-balanced piece, but is occassionally in danger of sitting on the fence too much - and you get splinters by sitting on the fence:

"There is an old school of journalistic thought, as conceited as it is quaint, that PR people should be information officers whose primary function is to make life easier for hacks. The same school of thought holds that modern PR people are slick, scientific spinners who cynically exploit the media, particularly when they are weakened, as they are now, by scarce resources.

The truth is probably about halfway between the two. Of course we PRs want to put our clients' points of view across. That's no different to wearing your most flattering outfit for an important meeting. It isn't venal or even especially commercial. Putting your best foot forward is an entirely natural and quite uplifting thing to do."

Thankfully, the two paragraphs above were just the introduction and the article goes on to discuss both the appeal that PR has over journalism (referencing Nick Davies along the way) and how strong relationships between hacks and flacks is a good thing for both sides:

"Certainly, it increases the chances of getting our clients' points of view across, but it also means we have to be careful not to over-egg the pudding and alienate valuable contacts. PR people who get caught lying lose credibility and influence."

It's refreshing to hear a PR man defend and even promote the industry, especially in due consideration to the profession's notorious 'darkside' and accepting the pressure that journalists are under in modern times:

"Journalists who have used up their expense budgets and spent their meagre wages but need to entertain an important contact sometimes get in touch with me. Would I mind joining in and picking up the tab to save the hack's embarrassment? Of course not. All part of the service. Do I want anything in return? Maybe, but nothing earth-shattering. A little mention here, a non-mention there. Is that unethical? In the modern world, I don't think so."

McCrystal even has the good grace to admit a case where he deliberately misled journalists (though he still plays the classic PR man by putting a positive spin on the incident):

"In the years I have spent as a PR man I can recall only one instance in which I deliberately misled journalists. I was the PR adviser on a big, hostile takeover project that had to be kept under wraps because we believed that if it leaked the deal would die on its feet. There was a lot of speculation about what we were planning and a couple of enterprising journalists dug out the truth, but they were not confident about it, so I steered them in a different direction. In the end, the details did leak, the target was alerted and the deal died, so my decision to mislead had been justified (even if, in the final analysis, it had been pointless). I do not regard that as an abuse. Sometimes, as all good journalists know, there are good reasons for keeping secrets. Not that there aren't abuses, but they usually require a willing journalist. I have heard of - though never encountered - hacks demanding inducements to follow a particular line."

The article is essential reading for both PRs and journalists, if only to foster a better understanding of the pressures that both sides are under. There will be parts that you agree with and parts you disagree with, but it will stimulate discussion on the relationships between your PR team and the journalists they interact with everyday, so spread it round the team and get the debate going.

You can find the article here.