By copying press releases word for word are “churnalists” destroying the authority of news?

Inside PR

PRmoment Jobs

Date: 09 March 2011 09:48

Stay in touch with PRmoment.com

Last month, when Churnalism.com was launched by the Media Standards Trust charity, it sparked arguments as to whether the media was becoming a pawn of the PR industry. The site compares the text of press releases with articles published by national newspaper websites, the BBC or Sky News since 2008, to highlight how much news is reproduced PR copy.
With so much PR material feeding the news, the fear is that the news is being led by PR‘s agenda. It highlights how little investigative journalism there is out there and how much journalists are in thrall to their PR contacts. As Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, says: “From a short-term perspective PR people may see it as a good thing that so many of their press releases are churned into mainstream media. But it is self-defeating in the long run since it undermines the credibility and independence of news outlets. It's in both PR and journalism's long-term interest to be more transparent about the connection between them.”

Mark Pack, head of digital at PR firm MHP, also worries that PROs will eventually kill the publications they feed: "However understandable the reasons may sometimes be for churnalism, in particular small budgets and over-pressed staff, the net result is not a good one for a healthy media. Good PR practitioners know this. Whatever the short-term attraction there may be of seeing your client’s story in print exactly as you would have wanted it, long-term we all benefit from a media that questions stories, forces people to raise their standards and which wins the trust of the public in the process."

However, Richard Sambrook, global vice chairman and chief content officer at PR firm Edelman, believes that the notion that PR content will somehow pollute journalism is an outdated concept. In his view bad copy is the result of either lazy journalists or sloppy PROs, both are equally accountable. He adds: “Practitioners of either craft can be good or bad. But the best PR is about building influence through trusted relationships with information and conversation which is engaging, relevant and of public value. The best journalism tries to do something similar. PROs, as honest advocates for clients, should be able to be constructive colleagues of independent journalism.”

The argument that news cannot be neutral if it is “infected” by PR spin is spurious in Sambrook’s view. He points out that if the criticism is that corporate communications is never self critical, this is an accusation equally aimed at most of the press: “You won’t read about phone hacking in a Murdoch newspaper or a pro-Europe story in the Daily Mail. We all have agendas – we should declare them more freely.”

Sambrook concludes that it is important that PROs continue to strive to maintain standards and build media relationships: “Transparency and openness are virtues both disciplines need to pursue. As journalism shrinks, and PR grows with the opportunities of the digital age, we need new ways to think about and manage the relationship between them. “

Soundbites

Gary Quinn, media consultant at agency Tangerine PR:
“What Churnalism.com fails to recognise is the ongoing relationship that exists between journalists and PROs. For example, many leading journalists, on some of the UK’s biggest selling newspapers, work with PROs to ensure they produce the most relevant press releases for them. This is because they recognise the relevance and importance of the stories that certain PROs can offer them, and in turn their readers.”

Claire Thompson, freelance PR consultant:
“Churnalism has had its day. Content aggregation sites serve the need for raw, instant information at source more reliably. When there were lots of media outlets, needing to fill lots of pages, supported by advertising, there was a constant need for quick, easy information that reworked press releases delivered. That game has now changed, and journalists must look for new ways to differentiate on quality of content. The maxim of the moment for publishers seems to be 'get big, get niche or get out'!”

Enjoyed this article? Click here to read more Inside PR features

Comments

Richard Sambrook is spot on, there's a very simple need out there, which is to get PRs, freelancers, journalists, bloggers and all media communicating effectively. Shamelessly I mention that at Ebiquity in our PR Intelligence division this is top priority in our aim of providing a cost effective channel for enabling a fully joined up and quantifiable service hub to enable a better and faster content production chain. If the end result is that by enabling all areas to communicate directly, efficiently and most importantly collaboratively, we get a better, cheaper to produce media output, then the future looks good. As a dedicated supporter of the need for good regional media in all of it's possible outlets, I see this joining of the dots as a clear passage to improved content and improved profitability. Name: valentine Smith www.ebiquity.com/pr Date: 11 Mar 2011 09:24 AM
Mark Pack mentions the importance of a media that "questions stories, forces people to raise their standards and which wins the trust of the public in the process" - well absolutely. As a PRO I would like to see a lot more of this, as would many fantastic journalists I know. Our agenda is clear. I agree that Richard Sambrook is spot on. The idea that PR's are somehow the route of all that is wrong in journalism is ridiculous and outdated. Name: Karen Wagg www.peregrinecommunications.com Date: 11 Mar 2011 10:46 AM
I agree with everything that's been said so far. But if our role as communications professionals is to represent our clients/employers, we are talking about what we care about, not what a reader might necessarily want to hear about (to start with). Our role, our skills, our experience are all then deployed in getting the message through. There was a time when there was that dynamic tension between the journalist (and anyone else for that matter on the receiving end) and the PR person: is the story judged by the journalist as actually being worthy of being repeated? Is it really news? We all knew that if we got that wrong, we wouldn't be successful. Do that too often, and we’d be out of a job. There are many media (journalists) who do replicate press releases as is, and many that don't. We see both. I think the credibility factor still remains, in that if we get things wrong, readers will simply ignore our work, even if the journalist relays our words unaltered. Right now, I'm seeing both: long pieces verbatim, and much shorter ones where journalists have interpreted (sub-edited, at any rate) the copy. But it's also the case that the journalist-readership-participation-news information model is changing, I think. Many have written about the slow (fast?) change from having to rely on those regarded as experts to convey information (journalists) to the self-publishing model (everyone does it themselves). Having news media and journalists is an historic happenstance which has worked for hundreds of years. Whether it should continue is moot, it will or it won't, or it will in an altered form. If, in years to come, there are no such things as newspapers or magazines, we'll all turn to other info feeds and sources, perhaps applying our own filters without the intermediate layer. I think what we'll also seeing of course is the demise of many media outlets in the face of fierce competition from other, varied channels. If they were all to disappear, what would we all do next? We'd find or create other channels. And we'd all move on, as comms professionals and as consumers of news. Don't forget, "real" news - the recent events in Christchurch, the Middle East, and of course Japan - still cut through, except there are new info sources at play as well, in the form of individuals with smart phones or cameras feeding straight to air, using Skype because other comms channels have broken down, and so on. And we can all get this without having to watch the media outlet. None of this changes our ethics: we tell the truth and are open and fair, or we don't. And we'll still be measured for this. And none of this changes the value a good journalist brings to bear - the ability to provide context, and to interpret for us what is happening on the ground. Name: Alan Smith live.altium.com Date: 13 Mar 2011 11:55 PM
Beyond identifying an issue - and it is an issue if media becomes too PR-led - it's not clear what the Media Standards Trust is advocating as a solution. It wasn't the PRs who underresourced news media, didn't invest in training and then accepted rewritten press releases as news. Let's be clear: journalists who phone and ask questions and, as a result write better stories about our clients are a good thing. More challenge means we can add more value and command better fees/salaries. Name: Bankflak Date: 14 Mar 2011 11:31 AM
IMHO it is in everyone's interest for all writers, PROs and journalists alike, to maintain the highest standards, whilst journalists have an additional responsibility to ensure balance, as one-eyed information is akin to misinformation ("the truth, the whole truth,..."). Name: Oliver Lawrence www.proz.com/translator/861452 Date: 15 Mar 2011 11:26 AM
Richard Sambrook touches upon an excellent point that is quite often left out of the churnalism debate: The relationship between PR pros and journalists is often symbiotic. PR professionals and journalists each play an important role in ensuring that the information conveyed to the public is both truthful and accurate, and is done with the public's best interests in mind. Here in the U.S., the "churnalism" debate hasn't hit all that hard, though much like our UK counterparts, we, too, are criticized for sometimes pushing out press releases that have little to no news value, only to see that information make its way into the papers a day later as hard "news." All the more reason for PR professionals to be as ethical as possible and to ensure that truly newsworthy information is being disseminated. Otherwise, we risk losing much of our credibility, as well as diminishing the general media industry's credibility, by putting out rubbish that does little to serve the public good or the business community. PR pros' value largely derives from their credibility with the media, their clients and the public. But this is a symbiotic relationship. Journalists have a significant role to play in due diligence to ensure the articles they write include third-party validation from sources other than those given to them by PR professionals. Perhaps Churnalism.com will cause PR professionals and journalists to look at our collective work and see whether we are truly helping to expand society's collective knowledge. Keith Trivitt Associate Director of Public Relations Public Relations Society of America \(PRSA) http://www.prsa.org/ Name: Keith Trivitt www.prsa.org/ Date: 15 Mar 2011 06:08 PM

Richard Sambrook is spot on, there's a very simple need out there, which is to get PRs, freelancers, journalists, bloggers and all media communicating effectively. Shamelessly I mention that at Ebiquity in our PR Intelligence division this is top priority in our aim of providing a cost effective channel for enabling a fully joined up and quantifiable service hub to enable a better and faster content production chain. If the end result is that by enabling all areas to communicate directly, efficiently and most importantly collaboratively, we get a better, cheaper to produce media output, then the future looks good. As a dedicated supporter of the need for good regional media in all of it's possible outlets, I see this joining of the dots as a clear passage to improved content and improved profitability.

Name: valentine Smith
www.ebiquity.com/pr
Date: 11 Mar 2011 09:24 AM

Mark Pack mentions the importance of a media that "questions stories, forces people to raise their standards and which wins the trust of the public in the process" - well absolutely. As a PRO I would like to see a lot more of this, as would many fantastic journalists I know. Our agenda is clear. I agree that Richard Sambrook is spot on. The idea that PR's are somehow the route of all that is wrong in journalism is ridiculous and outdated.

Name: Karen Wagg
www.peregrinecommunications.com
Date: 11 Mar 2011 10:46 AM

I agree with everything that's been said so far. But if our role as communications professionals is to represent our clients/employers, we are talking about what we care about, not what a reader might necessarily want to hear about (to start with). Our role, our skills, our experience are all then deployed in getting the message through. There was a time when there was that dynamic tension between the journalist (and anyone else for that matter on the receiving end) and the PR person: is the story judged by the journalist as actually being worthy of being repeated? Is it really news? We all knew that if we got that wrong, we wouldn't be successful. Do that too often, and we’d be out of a job. There are many media (journalists) who do replicate press releases as is, and many that don't. We see both. I think the credibility factor still remains, in that if we get things wrong, readers will simply ignore our work, even if the journalist relays our words unaltered. Right now, I'm seeing both: long pieces verbatim, and much shorter ones where journalists have interpreted (sub-edited, at any rate) the copy. But it's also the case that the journalist-readership-participation-news information model is changing, I think. Many have written about the slow (fast?) change from having to rely on those regarded as experts to convey information (journalists) to the self-publishing model (everyone does it themselves). Having news media and journalists is an historic happenstance which has worked for hundreds of years. Whether it should continue is moot, it will or it won't, or it will in an altered form. If, in years to come, there are no such things as newspapers or magazines, we'll all turn to other info feeds and sources, perhaps applying our own filters without the intermediate layer. I think what we'll also seeing of course is the demise of many media outlets in the face of fierce competition from other, varied channels. If they were all to disappear, what would we all do next? We'd find or create other channels. And we'd all move on, as comms professionals and as consumers of news. Don't forget, "real" news - the recent events in Christchurch, the Middle East, and of course Japan - still cut through, except there are new info sources at play as well, in the form of individuals with smart phones or cameras feeding straight to air, using Skype because other comms channels have broken down, and so on. And we can all get this without having to watch the media outlet. None of this changes our ethics: we tell the truth and are open and fair, or we don't. And we'll still be measured for this. And none of this changes the value a good journalist brings to bear - the ability to provide context, and to interpret for us what is happening on the ground.

Name: Alan Smith
live.altium.com
Date: 13 Mar 2011 11:55 PM

Beyond identifying an issue - and it is an issue if media becomes too PR-led - it's not clear what the Media Standards Trust is advocating as a solution. It wasn't the PRs who underresourced news media, didn't invest in training and then accepted rewritten press releases as news. Let's be clear: journalists who phone and ask questions and, as a result write better stories about our clients are a good thing. More challenge means we can add more value and command better fees/salaries.

Name: Bankflak

Date: 14 Mar 2011 11:31 AM

IMHO it is in everyone's interest for all writers, PROs and journalists alike, to maintain the highest standards, whilst journalists have an additional responsibility to ensure balance, as one-eyed information is akin to misinformation ("the truth, the whole truth,...").

Name: Oliver Lawrence
www.proz.com/translator/861452
Date: 15 Mar 2011 11:26 AM

Richard Sambrook touches upon an excellent point that is quite often left out of the churnalism debate: The relationship between PR pros and journalists is often symbiotic. PR professionals and journalists each play an important role in ensuring that the information conveyed to the public is both truthful and accurate, and is done with the public's best interests in mind. Here in the U.S., the "churnalism" debate hasn't hit all that hard, though much like our UK counterparts, we, too, are criticized for sometimes pushing out press releases that have little to no news value, only to see that information make its way into the papers a day later as hard "news." All the more reason for PR professionals to be as ethical as possible and to ensure that truly newsworthy information is being disseminated. Otherwise, we risk losing much of our credibility, as well as diminishing the general media industry's credibility, by putting out rubbish that does little to serve the public good or the business community. PR pros' value largely derives from their credibility with the media, their clients and the public. But this is a symbiotic relationship. Journalists have a significant role to play in due diligence to ensure the articles they write include third-party validation from sources other than those given to them by PR professionals. Perhaps Churnalism.com will cause PR professionals and journalists to look at our collective work and see whether we are truly helping to expand society's collective knowledge. Keith Trivitt Associate Director of Public Relations Public Relations Society of America \(PRSA) http://www.prsa.org/

Name: Keith Trivitt
www.prsa.org/
Date: 15 Mar 2011 06:08 PM

Conferences & Training

Public Relations is Changing: Why the power of PR has never been so great

Date: 24 May 2012 12:00
Location: Ketchum Pleon, London
Cost: Tickets from £155 + VAT

Why attend event: Learn how PR is changing - Understand how to integrate product related content into your social media channels to increase sales - Hear how the skill make up of in house PR teams is changing - Understand what the C-suite wants from PR in 2012 - Learn how PR drives sales - Understand what the implications of SEO and Google+ are for PR

Internal Comms: How brands can make employees advocates

Date: 28 Jun 2012 12:00
Location: Bell Pottinger, London
Cost: Free of charge for in-house PR professionals

Why attend event: Are you an internal comms professional? Do you believe social media has an important role to play in internal comms? Are the skill requirements for internal comms and external comms converging?

Name		Comments
Website
Email
	Tick to receive comment notifications for this article		Enter the words above:

Email
Name
Company
Job Title
Please supply an email address. Please enter a valid email address.

PRmoment

Inside PR