PR watch
It's appropriate that Wal-Mart's spokesmen provide the ultimate example of bad "public relations." In my experience, PR people rarely discuss an issue. What they actually do is promote their companies, defend their companies and take up space in reporter's notebooks and stories without really contributing much information or insight. They are really just marketers who specialize in talking to reporters.
Since PR's influence on news reporting is becoming frighteningly pervasive, I will ocassionally talk about the role of spokesmen in specific news stories.
Of course, companies should have some way of keeping in touch with the press; I don't know if there's really any solution to the basic problems it creates. Even without PR departments and full-time spokespeople, companies still have an interest in looking good in the press. The only real alternative I can think of at the moment is to avoid the company line altogether, except as a point of comparison for what reporters find out on their own.
Steven Greenhouse's story "Unions Plan Big Drive for Better Pay at Nonunion Wal-Mart" in today's Times relies almost entirely on Union spokesmen and Wal-Mart spokesmen. This story seems to have been reported entirely over the phone. Where are comments from wage-workers and managers in Wal-Marts? You have to speak to people actually involved in the situation. That's not an unrealistic ideal; that's just a good standard of thorough reporting.
PR people are pussywhipped. It's in their interest to make reporters pussywhipped as well. Spokesmen never actually engage in a debate. They pull back from the terms of the debate and try to confine what they say to the terms of advertising. Spokesmen like those representing unions in this story are the voice of activism—perhaps valid, perhaps misguided, perhaps wrong. The Wal-Mart spokesmen in this story are the voice of hucksterism and bargain-grubbing and of understandable corporate interests. Neither are the voice of reason or factual exploration. That's where reporters have to pick up the slack.
Since PR's influence on news reporting is becoming frighteningly pervasive, I will ocassionally talk about the role of spokesmen in specific news stories.
Of course, companies should have some way of keeping in touch with the press; I don't know if there's really any solution to the basic problems it creates. Even without PR departments and full-time spokespeople, companies still have an interest in looking good in the press. The only real alternative I can think of at the moment is to avoid the company line altogether, except as a point of comparison for what reporters find out on their own.
Steven Greenhouse's story "Unions Plan Big Drive for Better Pay at Nonunion Wal-Mart" in today's Times relies almost entirely on Union spokesmen and Wal-Mart spokesmen. This story seems to have been reported entirely over the phone. Where are comments from wage-workers and managers in Wal-Marts? You have to speak to people actually involved in the situation. That's not an unrealistic ideal; that's just a good standard of thorough reporting.
PR people are pussywhipped. It's in their interest to make reporters pussywhipped as well. Spokesmen never actually engage in a debate. They pull back from the terms of the debate and try to confine what they say to the terms of advertising. Spokesmen like those representing unions in this story are the voice of activism—perhaps valid, perhaps misguided, perhaps wrong. The Wal-Mart spokesmen in this story are the voice of hucksterism and bargain-grubbing and of understandable corporate interests. Neither are the voice of reason or factual exploration. That's where reporters have to pick up the slack.
posted by Scott at 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home