It is a self-regarding conceit of journalism that we are the dogs for whom public relations furnishes the lamp posts, says John Lloyd writing in the Financial Times.
In a jaundiced view of the relationship between journalism and PR in politics, Lloyd’s “The Truth about Spin” in Friday’s FT presents an uncomfortable partnership between two professions where neither appears to have anything other than self-interest as its motive for being:
There is a phrase attributed to, among others, Harold Evans when he was editor of The Sunday Times, which was advice given to his reporters: “Always ask yourself, when interviewing a politician, why is this bastard lying to me?” It’s been denounced as cynical, but it’s from a more innocent age. It was self-servingly innocent to assume that “lying” is a one-sided phenomenon. Today, advice by any government communications adviser to ministers, MPs, civil servants and political aides would be a variation on the Evans advice: “Always ask yourself, when being interviewed by a journalist, how will this bastard distort what I’m saying?”
While Lloyd paints a dark and cynical picture of this journalism/PR niche, he then goes on to highlight a significant point which I believe is the heart of the real symbiosis between journalism and PR:
[...] Public relations and journalism do not inhabit separate worlds; in particular, the relationship between them is not that of sleazy liars seeking to seduce seekers after truth. Truth does not reside on one side only. Standards are not the monopoly of one and unknown to the other. Journalism cannot understand itself unless it understands what public relations has done to it; how murky and grubby the relationship can become, with the connivance of both, and how the relationship might work to the benefit of citizens who should be told something like the truth.
Some might say that if you want the truth, don’t read newspapers.
What Lloyd’s feature indicates to me is the role social media will play (is playing) in evolving that symbiosis where no longer will it be just an inefficient and untrustworthy filtering system. And in the political area, we need more direct-speaking from ministers and MPs without the filtered spin from PRs and journalists.
More like David Miliband, Minister of Communities and Local Government in the UK and a member of the cabinet, who has a blog.
I’ll add my own cynicism to Lloyd’s feature with this view – most PRs and journalists add little value to truth-telling if they’re nothing more than channels or conduits who distort and manipulate the original message. Assuming, of course, that their roles are to do with truth-telling.
If you want to get close to the truth, cut out the middlemen. Let the citizens make up their own minds as to what is truth.
About Neville Hobson
‘Citizen’ is fine with me, Philip! Perhaps more Citizen Smith than Winston Smith – a better Utopia, I think.
I don’t know if you’ve read the Economist’s new media survey which appeared this week. I’m going to quote some views from that which I think illustrate those deep waters you speak of.
The pessimistic view, by Paul Saffo, a futurologist:
It’s a very good point. Perhaps one of journalism’s value roles is to point out such things.
Then the optimistic view by Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life project:
That view makes total sense to me. Further optimisim from Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail:
The Economist writer adds to that: Liquidity is exactly what participatory media provide.
And to your point about the Danish academic: the fact is that technology is becoming simpler and the barriers to entry are becoming lower.
People will figure this out.
Comment moderation: open or closed?…
In an earlier post, I said this:Milliband’s blogging doesn’t prove a thing, except that he’s willing to expose himself slightly. If my memory serves me correctly, he’s filtering comments so he’s still in control of both what he chooses to…
[...] Last week, I posted commentary about an article by John Lloyd in the Financial Times on the relationship – I used the word symbiosis: check the definition – between journalism and PR in politics. The concluding point in my post was this: [...]
[...] PR bloke-turned-communications guru Neville Hobson weighs in. Why not cut out that whole middle layer, he says, and let public figures/corporate types speak for themselves? Most PRs and journalists add little value to truth-telling if they’re nothing more than channels or conduits who distort and manipulate the original message. Assuming, of course, that their roles are to do with truth-telling. If you want to get close to the truth, cut out the middlemen. Let the citizens make up their own minds as to what is truth. [...]
[...] The real symbiosis between PR and journalism (in this blog) [...]
In my own words…
I thought this piece about journalism and PR on Neville Hobson’s blog (which in turn refers back to a……
[...] A question about politics from a reader in the UK has given me pause for thought. He emailed me to suggest that political bias influences some of what I write in this blog, pointing out the style of my commentary the other day criticizing the Number Ten podcast and my commentaries in the conversation about PR/journalism symbiosis a couple of months ago as examples. [...]
[...] The real symbiosis between PR and journalism [...]