by Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink
More than a dozen PR groups worldwide, including the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), are in a three-month quest to define “public relations”; it seems New York Times columnist David Carr might have beaten them to the punch.
In a January 29th, 2012 column about the twittering’s of Rupert Murdoch, “A Glimpse of Murdoch Unbound”, Carr managed to define public relations in a single word – “slop”.
New York Times columnist David Carr Photo: NY Times
Born in Hopkins, a small town in rural Minnesota, Carr is probably well familiar with the term “slop” – waste food used by pig farmers to fatten their hogs before being shipped off to slaughter.
As journalism major at the University of Minnesota he probably became familiar with the alternate definition of the word – repulsively effusive writing or speech; drivel.
In his article Carr wrote “The modern chief executive lives behind a wall of communications operatives, many of whom ladle out slop meant to obscure rather than reveal.”
To be fair to the public relations profession the New York Times columnist, whose roots resemble Mary Richards of the Mary Tyler Moore Show, might have confused the two definitions. But would a PR professional really dish out “slop” to fatten up a pig being led to slaughter?
In fairness to Mr. Carr, I am sure that his definition of “slop” leaned toward the drivel he perceives PR to produce on a daily basis.
The New York Times journalist is not alone is his negative perception of the profession. From the writer on a small town newspaper in Podunk, USA to the managing editor of a worldwide newsgathering organization, PR faces a crisis of perception – a crisis that the fresh paint of a new definition will not cover up.
Accord to Carr, “As American business has become more and more media savvy, its leaders have appeared in media less and less. Business reporters have to work their way past background conversations with underlings, written statements that state nothing, and that increasingly hardy perennial: the ‘no comment.’”
PRSA, an organization of 21,000 public relations and communications professionals across the United States, has become a main proponent of shutting media out.
In a response comment to an article posted on Newsroom Ink concerning the longstanding feud between PRSA and columnist Jack O’Dwyer of O’Dwyer PR Magazine; PRSA Vice-President of Communications Arthur Yann set a policy of banning all reporters from covering PRSA’s annual assembly. A PR society banning the press – a sad oxymoron indeed.
PR is not in need of a catchy new phrase that can be put to music and sung on America’s Got Talent.
What working journalists like David Carr are trying to signal PR professionals is “now is the time to clean up your act and start acting like the professionals your are suppose to be.”
It is time for all PR professional organizations worldwide to quit wasting time and energy trying to whitewash the profession with a new definition. Instead the time has come to start open and meaningful dialogs with organizations representing the media to improve relationships and understanding between the two professions.
As Komen for the Cure Foundation found out the hard way, in this digital age of instant communication one does not define itself, but is subject to the definition placed upon it by others. Is “slop” the definition PR really wants to muddle through?
- Be the First to Share this Article:
Recommend on Facebook- Share on Linkedin
- Tweet about it
- Tell a friend
One thing is clear from this article: Newsroom Ink is no New York Times, and Ed Lallo is no David Carr (whose article, by the way, isn’t about public relations at all).
For the record:
PRSA is not a “main proponent of shutting media out.” PRSA’s Code of Ethics holds “advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information” as a core principle, so as to maintain the integrity of relationships with the media, government officials and the public.
My “comment to an article posted on Newsroom Ink” was this: “PRSA is a private member organization and our national Leadership Assembly is a private meeting of our members. We’re well within our rights to bar any and all reporters from attending.” That is not setting “a policy of banning all reporters from covering PRSA’s annual assembly,” but acknowledging our right to do so. To my knowledge, PRSA has refused only a single request for media credentials in 65 years of holding its assembly, and we clearly outlined the reasons why we took such an unprecedented step here (http://ow.ly/8WNfM) and here (http://ow.ly/8WNhZ).
PRSA and the allied professional organizations working with us are not attempting to “define ‘public relations’” with a “catchy new phrase” to “whitewash the profession.” As we’ve stated here (http://ow.ly/8WNVo) and elsewhere, our purpose is to engender a dialogue and debate about what public relations is, what practitioners do, how we do it and who benefits from our services in the modern, digital era.
What is a “sad oxymoron,” though, is that “journalists” purporting to cover — and sell to — the public relations industry are so intent on tearing it down, especially given that spending on traditional and digital public relations services in the U.S. increased to $5.7 billion in 2010 (a 12.8-percent year-over-year increase), and that 50 percent of firms participating in a 2011 year-end survey of members conducted by the Council of PR Firms reported double-digit growth in 2011.
Clearly, there are those who hold public relations in much higher esteem than Mr. Lallo and his strange bedfellow, Mr. O’Dwyer.
Arthur:
You are correct that Mr. Carr’s article was not about the public relations industry, but instead about the performance of the industry in handling of CEO’s. During the course of the article he happened upon an interesting concept for a definition of PR from the perspective of a journalist – those that actually define PR.
You mention PRSA Code of Ethics, but fail to follow the first principle of good PR. On both of my articles that have criticized your organization, PRSA was given the chance to comment before the articles were published but chose not to. Instead, attacking in comments my organization and me personally as an “extortionist”, when I offered the services of Newsroom Ink to PRSA at no cost to your organization.
“And this isn’t the first time that Mr. Lallo approached PRSA in an extortion-like way about using its services. In an article he posted entitled, “‘Overqualified’ – Code for ‘Too Old,’ Professional Organizations Should Step Up to Help All Communicators,” was this gem.” – Arthur Yann comment on Talentzoo.
In a posted response to the extortion-like article by IABC International Chair Adrian Cropley he stated, “This is a great thought piece and has my brain juices flowing. I think you are right to call on the professional associations to help at both ends of the spectrum. IABC as part of our strategy development this year is starting to look at ‘whole of Career’ development. We must ensure that we meet the needs of our members and profession for career development, up-skilling, re-skilling and continuous education.”
Out of that so-called extortion-like article came a site similar to the offered made to PRSA – BeHeardAutin.com, a service of IABC Austin to local, state and worldwide communicators. Members of IABC, PRSA and other communication organizations now follow the site internationally. The total cost to the chapter was a $300 fee payable to my Vice-President of Technology Tony Cecala to integrate the old IABC Austin website into the new newsroom.
I personally ate over $5000 in expenses to set up the site – wow that is sure extortion gone wrong. I also pay out of pocket the upkeep and fees on the site.
You continue to paint me as a supporter of Jack O’Dywer, which I am when it comes to the right for reporters to have open access. But I also support PRSA, and any organizations, rights to keep financials private, as long as all proper government regulation paperwork has been filed truthfully and properly – if questions arise then you are fair game to inquires by the press.
Arthur, from you I have seen no positive initiative to lead your organization. In all of your posts, which must take a up a fair portion of your work day, I have seen nothing but criticism and defense. Your PR effort has now positioned the organization into a corner where good journalists must now ask the question – “What does PRSA have to hide?”
When Newsroom Ink published the first article on O’Dwyer “PRSA’s Reputation Crumbles, Faces Crisis of Integrity“, my organization supported –and continues to support- his right to access, as well as all journalists’ rights, to open access as to cover a story in a manner appropriate manner. If any journalists fail to act in a professional manner, then they should be subject to ejection – not by story content, but by professional conduct.
It is indeed sad you think it is important for an organization dependent upon a symbiotic relationship with the press to bury their head in the ground like an ostrich in the face of adversity. More importantly, like a bull facing a matador, the name of Jack O’Dywer is a red cape that you cannot seem to resist charging into without first seeing if there is a deadly sword on the other side.