The Journalism of Journalism

 

The Journalism of Journalism

Public Relations Practitioners Provide an 'Information Subsidy' to Journalists. 

There must be broader social and political implications, with a critical impact on civil society and the public sphere. 

By Delphie Levy Jones 

The relationship between public relations and journalism, the information exchange between the two fields, and why this occurs initially appears straightforward, but can have complex repercussions. By defining ‘information subsidy’ as the free provision of newsworthy material to and from relevant sources (Gandy 1980), it can be initially inferred that the exchange from PR practitioners to journalists suggests an intent to “influence media agenda” and “affect public opinion” (Curtin 1999: 53). Whilst debatably the role and power of news media is to focus public attention and set attitudes of key issues (McCombs 2002), it is crucial to investigate the social and political implications of information subsidies, both positive and negative, and the subsequent impacts on civil society.

The Aims of PR, Journalism and the Interdependency and Complexity of their Relationship

In order to effectively consider both advantages and disadvantages of a PR-to-journalist information subsidy, it feels necessary to acknowledge the interdependent and symbiotic relationship between the domains (Schonhagen and Meissner 2016: 748). By considering these as media relations which reinforce each other, and then the ensuing influences they have on their attracted audiences, then it is possible to argue the industries’ ultimate goals may have bias agendas. Arguably, the impact of the “PR-ization of the media” on civil society and the public sphere may have dangerous social and political implications, compromising ethics surrounding the objectivity and impartiality of journalism and news media (Blessing and Marren 2013: 83).

This raises the question as to why journalists willingly receive potentially motivated information from PR practitioners. With more than 75% of news originating from press releases (Verčič and Colic 2016), the reason behind this interdependent relationship appears essential to both occupations. A journalist’s access to information from PR practitioners does not involve high cost or effort. With costs contained and profits increased, readable content is still able to be produced, accessible to a wide audience (Verčič et al 2017).

Once considering the reliance journalism has on PR practitioners for its content and information, it is useful to distinguish the debated nature of the PR industry, and its controversiality. Described as “the planned persuasion of people to behave in ways which further sponsors’ objectives” (Morris and Goldsworthy 2012: 6), an “alleged lack of ethics” is said to exist among PR practitioners (Lloyd and Toogood 2015: 8). Whilst it is fair to also highlight the communicative benefits and necessity of public relations, there is a more disconcerting issue that spin is “increasingly taking over political discourse” (Blessing and Marren 2013: 83). As well as politics, the powerful and disputedly dangerous influence of PR’s information subsidy to journalism can impact the public sphere religiously, commercially and culturally (Lloyd and Toogood 2015).

Positive Implications of an Information Subsidy

With journalists conscious of PR’s aims, it is anticipated that they may not view practitioners favourably. However, there is recent research to suggest disciplines are prioritising a cultivation in relationship management, whereby such “adversarial views” may be “shrinking” (Waters et al 2010: 244). This networking, described in the Journal of Public Relations Research (2010) as reinforcing the interpersonal relationship between journalists and PR practitioners, is claimed to be key in influencing the outcome of successful media relations. From such communication, journalists gain useful insight into representations of prominent organisations, communicating and promoting to the public, and how this can contribute to stories. Simultaneously, practitioners gain awareness of “media deadlines” and “communication preferences” (Waters et al 2010: 245).

This supports the idea that information subsidies are not just a power distribution between fields, but can be effective in advancing public interest. Such efforts from media relations not only aim to strengthen occupational relationships, but an increase in product or brand awareness can in fact lead to benefits for civil society. Berger (2001) found previous information subsidies, which had gained media coverage, were found to “influence policy issues” that were not previously marked on the public or media’s agenda (Waters et al 2010: 245). By exposing important messages to society, journalists and PR practitioners share a mutual strategy. With a joint target of reaching specific audiences and pointing them to trustworthy organisations and their relevant objectives, both journalism and PR can cater endorsed products or ideas, already or newly consumed within the public sphere.

Rudder (2020) highlights examples of successful and beneficial information subsidies in the form of press releases. These include NASA recording scientific and technological developments, Chick-Fil-A’s product improvement press when announcing their non-antibiotic usage of chicken, to Zoom’s crisis communication release stating an improvement in software post rising security concerns. Alongside charities using such information subsidies to promote important causes, Donate Life America’s initiative to increase organ donor registrations as an example (Rudder 2020), there is clear evidence of positive social implications and its impact on the public.  

Negative Implications of an Information Subsidy

It is a fairly undisputed to claim that PR intend to sell. Whether it be a product, or a brand’s reputation, there is an underlying agenda to present a position or candidate in the “most favourable light” (Blessing and Marren 2013: 84). Even seemingly beneficial press releases can appear to capitalise from sensitive causes or difficult situations. Due to low costs and efforts needed as discussed, journalists accept information subsidies as an easier root, drastically decreasing any individual investigation they would otherwise need to conduct. It can therefore be inferred that journalists from particular publications or news agencies, likely tabloids whose content majority relies on press and PR, produces similarly devoid or distorted stories.

Examples of information subsidies having consequential backlash can often be seen in hyperbolic health journalism. Domansky (2002) described newsjacking and profiteering press release examples such as ‘In-Demand Germ-Killing Items Following Covid-19’s Spread’ belonging to a travel company, rather than a medical research firm. Similarly, ‘A Truly Innovative Way to Lose Weight’ attempts to sell pharmaceutical claims, yet is from a herbal-tea company website. Rather than selling truth and impartiality, stories such as these only sell ignorance and conspiracy to their audiences. Promotions of damaging misinformation can magnify or even cause societal issues, harmful behaviours and disorders.

The potentially dangerous implications of PR’s information subsidy to journalists do not stop at medical conspiracies, however. Even PR surrounding entertainment journalism, presumably one of the least controversial specialties, has received detrimental backlash. An example of this is when PR practitioners and journalists aimed to promote Sony Pictures’ ‘The Interview’, a film depicting the fictional assassination of Kim Jong-Un, and were met with a cyber-attack. Not only did this attack release highly confidential documents and emails concerning the involved actors, but resulted in the film premiere’s cancellation and mass criticism to President Barack Obama (Brown 2015). The intended comical nature of the film and press release, instead became a politically charged ambush, with public threats of physical violence.

According to Miller and Dinan (2008: 1), the origins of PR were “always covertly political”, with public relations argued to have become the “cutting edge of corporate power”. Whilst some newsworthy issues are undisputedly controversial, particularly political and those stemming from information subsidies, the line becomes finer as to how journalists are supposed to abandon biases. With news stories detrimental to public knowledge and education, journalism is intended to be relatively impartial and objectively factual, whereby the impact of public relations material, and its capacity of shaping news agenda, is even said to be worrying journalists (Tilley and Hollings 2008: 2, Waters et al 2010).

Impact on Civil Society and Public Sphere

With civil society unsure as to what news has a bias, the opinions and images held by the public of political candidates are arguably the “most obvious examples” of attribute agenda-setting by the media (McCombs 2002: 6). The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion (2002) highlights a clear convergence between journalist and PR practitioner’s agenda-setting of political candidates during an election, and societal opinion formation and change. It is therefore clear from the fear-mongering conspiracies circulating the political public sphere, particularly noticeable in recent events – the US presidential elections, Brexit, Covid-19, that many consumers of media do so passively. By referencing the examples listed, we can infer that public knowledge and understanding of the world formed from a trust that information subsidies are factual sources of news, does not only just cause passivity. Arguably, this form of mass manipulation spreads societal ignorance and polarisation.

Even within relatively impartial journalism, a perspective is still often projected. This collaboration with PR, information with a motive or brand to uphold, allegedly impacts the public beyond attitudes and opinions. A blind and divided reality created by stories framed as facts not only have dangerous implications for personal behaviours, but critical issues on a global scale. The ability of information subsidies to influence the focus of public attention is undoubtedly powerful, however it can be claimed that “influencing the agenda of attributes for an issue or political figure is the epitome of political power” (McCombs 2002: 8).  

Conclusion

Ultimately, there is an abundance of evidence to support the theory that the public acquires knowledge, and the salience of that knowledge, from information subsidies provided from PR practitioners to journalists. The resulting perceptions and priorities formed from and towards those issues are therefore influenced, shaped and impacted by the media (Turk 1985: 11). Due to the claim that practitioners and journalists use information subsidies which are both proactive and reactive (Turk 1985: 12), audience consumption of a covert or bias agenda is fully embedded within the main media content or message.

With the benefits and positive implications of information subsidies also considered, the disconcerting notion prevails that societal knowledge framed by blind consumption and systematic bias can cause polarisation and a spread of public ignorance, conspiracy and passivity. PR’s growth in involvement with journalism and news media is enmeshed in the development of consumer culture, central to both capitalistic and individualistic societies. Both considered public crises and the foreground of social isolation to their own degrees (Elliot and Lemert 2006: 3), it is crucial for prevention that audiences are aware of how to differentiate between the trustworthy, factual media, and the not so. Due to PR and journalism’s prevalent and complex interdependent relationship, it is unlikely the subsidy will cease. However, through civil society and the public sphere becoming active audiences of the media they consume, particularly with an awareness of information subsidies, the likelihood of such polarisation would be significantly less. 

For Further Reading... 

Berger, B. (2001) ‘Private Issues and Public Policy: Locating the Corporate Agenda in Agenda-Setting Theory’, Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, pp. 91–126

Blessing, K. and Marren, J. (2013) ‘Is the PR-ization of Media… BS?’, Media Ethics, 24(2), pp. 83-98, Available at: Is the PR-ization of Media . . . B.S.? - mediaethicsmagazine.com (Accessed on 1 April 2021)

Brown, G. (2015) Crisis PR – Top 10 Best and Worst, Available at: Crisis PR – Top 10 Best and Worst (rdpr.co.uk) (Accessed on 28 April 2021)

Curtin, P. (1999) ‘Revaluating Public Relations Information Subsidies: Market-Driven Journalism and Agenda-Building Theory and Practice’, Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(1), pp. 53-90, Available at: Reevaluating Public Relations Information Subsidies: Market-Driven Journalism and Agenda-Building Th (tandfonline.com) (Accessed on 1 April 2021)

Domansky, J. (2002) 21 Brand New Worst Press Release Disasters¸ Available at: 21 New Worst Press Release Disasters (theprcoach.com) (Accessed on 28 April 2021)

Elliot, A. and Lemert, C. (2006) The New Individualism, London: Routledge

Gandy, O. (1980) ‘Information in Health: Subsidized News?’, Media, Culture and Society, 2(2), pp. 101-115, Available at: Information in health: subsidised news (sagepub.com) (Accessed on 1 April 2021)

Lloyd, J. and Toogood, L. (2015) ‘News Media and Public Relations in the Digital Age’, Journalism and PR, Oxford: I.B. Tauris, pp. 1-84, Available at: Journalism and PR: News Media and Public Relations in the Digital Age (ox.ac.uk) (Accessed on 2 April 2021)

McCombs, M. (2002) ‘The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion’, Mass Media Economics 2002 Conference, London School of Economics, Available at: The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net) (Accessed on 26 April 2021)

Miller, D. and Dinan, W. (2008) A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power, London

Morris, T. and Goldsworthy, S. (2012) PR – A Persuasive Industry? Spin, Public Relations and the Shaping of the Modern Media, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 6

Ramsey, P. (2016) ‘The Public Sphere and PR: Deliberative Democracy and Agonistic Pluralism’, Routledge Handbook of Critical Public Relations, Oxfordshire: Routledge, pp. 65-75

Rudder, A. (2020) 15 Best Press Release Examples by Type, Available at: 15 Best Press Release Examples by Type (& Why They Work) (fitsmallbusiness.com) (Accessed on 28 April 2021)

Tilley, E. and Hollings, J. (2008) ‘Still Stuck In ‘‘A Love–Hate Relationship’’’, Understanding Journalists’ Enduring and Impassioned Duality Toward Public Relations, Paper presented at the ANZCA Conference, Wellington, New Zealand

Turk, J. (1985) ‘Information Subsidies and Influence’, Public Relations Review, 11(3), pp. 10-25, Available at: PII: S0363-8111(85)80078-3 | Elsevier Enhanced Reader (Accessed on 28 April 2021)

Verčič, A. and Colic, V. (2016) ‘Journalists and Public Relations Practitioners: A Coorientational Analysis, Public Relations Review, 42, pp. 522-529, Available at: Journalists and public relations specialists: A coorientational analysis - ScienceDirect (Accessed on 27 April 2021)

Verčič, A., Lalić, D. and Vujičić, D. (2017) ‘Journalists and Public Relations Practitioners: Comparing Two Countries’, Public Relations Review, 43(3), pp. 527-536, Available at: Journalists and public relations practitioners: Comparing two countries - ScienceDirect (Accessed on 1 April 2021)

Waters, R., Tindall, N. and Morton, T. (2010) ‘Media Catching and the Journalist– Public Relations Practitioner Relationship: How Social Media are Changing the Practice of Media Relations’, Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), pp. 241-264, Available at: Media Catching and the Journalist–Public Relations Practitioner Relationship: How Social Media are C (oclc.org) (Accessed on 27 April 2021)