Facts and Might-- The Relationship Between PR and Journalism

Fact: something known to exist or to have happened.
That definition is a fact. But, it's always up for interpretation.

A fact is the backbone of both journalism and public relations, but with a different understanding.

Journalists, according to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, seek and report the truth. Facts, then are objective pieces of evidence that together unfold the truth about a certain situation.

On the other hand, public relations practitioners don't view facts as clearly objective. Those facts can be interoperated, and manipulated to boost a client's image.

Likewise, because PR practitioners are said to undermine facts and sometimes have a tarnished image before others in the media industry. This rivalry between the two profession has been an apparent discussion from the beginning of the PR profession in the 1880s until now. To sum the rivalry up in harsh words, Stanely Walker, editor at the New York Herald Tribune in 1932 gave is known to once have said: "[public relations agent] are mass-mind molders, fronts, mouthpieces, chiselers, mooches, and special assistants to the president."

As harsh as that sounds, Reporters also have a specific term for PR practitioners, flack. According to Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communications:

"[flack] derives from the military word flak, meaning the antiaircraft artillery shells fired to deflect aerial attack, and from the related flak jacket, the protective military attire worn to ward off enemy fire. For journalists, the word flack has come to mean PR people who insert themselves between employers/clients and members of the press."

It is obvious that there's a lot of friction between the free press and the PR profession. To gain a little insight, PR practitioners are blamed for being the "go-between" between journalists and direct sources, and business can be manufactured into "news" taking the spot of real news, etc.

The power PR can not only hold reporters back but also give them a heads-up. With the downsizing of newsrooms during the economic downturn of our times, there may not be enough funds or reporters to pick and chose what information makes its way to the center stage of a newspaper or news broadcast. But with press releases written in a news story form, reporters are given story ideas. The strategy of the PR practitioner is then fulfilled: the PR practitioner's client is given publicity through the news media.

But just like a "flack" or "flak jacket", PR has a lot of power; which is exactly why I would like to take note of this "rivalry" or "dispute" between the professions. Broadly speaking, it is obvious to state that power in a profession can have a lot an impact.

I mention this babble and between two distinct media professions to illustrate how powerful public relations is, especially when it can sometimes control or take over one of the most favorable public service jobs in the United States: a reporter for the free press.

If PR practitioners have a somewhat easy time to direct a message towards a news media outlet or have the power to interoperate facts and feed them to the mass public, then they have the power to ignite social change. Social change starts with an idea, but needs to be spread to a mass amount of people for anything to happen.

Even if a PR practitioner doesn't have the skills of an investigative reporter, they may still have the power and knowledge of one specific problem to get it out in the public, known, and changed (with the help of the population, of course).

I feel that I must rename this babble between reporters and PR practitioners and actually call it a symbiotic relationship. Open up the doors, work together, and let the PR practitioner help the journalist do his job by telling what the journalist should "watchdog" for society and publish in the press.

There will be times when that "job" is to retain a company's image after a crisis, or "spin" a politician's image after wrongdoing, but like the old saying goes: always find the good within the bad. Just because the PR profession is tarnished and associated with undermining facts and the ethics of journalism doesn't mean PR cannot do any good. Not all agents are "flacks" or "mooches" or "mouthpieces", as mentioned earlier in this post. With power, one can do what's right. But what exactly would some PR practitioners call "right?" What exactly would they believe their social responsibility is?

Any ideas?
More to come, with answers.