Seems like local journalists at both the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Mitch Schnurman, 7.16.08 column) and the Dallas Morning News (Steve Blow, 7.13.08 column) don't mind beating up on the profession of PR. What'd they use as an excuse? Chesapeake Energy's bold entry into online video to disperse information concerning the Barnett Shale (shale.tv).
Rather than attack corporate PR efforts, maybe these journalists should consider the interesting changes happening with media. It's no secret that many journalists are monitoring blogs and other social media sites to find out what's important to folks these days. The interest in social media clearly explains why Chesapeake Energy and other corporations are deciding to offer their information online through a "pull" technology.
Largely due to social media, public relations in the last several years has been moving to a much more transparent model, one that invites two-way communication. The issue of transparency hasn't been lost on PR professionals. Witness the case study of Edelman's Wal-Marting Across America to understand how badly PR can be practiced. It seems to me that the field of PR - including Richard Edelman who issued an apology on behalf of his agency - took that case (and a couple of others) to heart. Edelman's redoubled their emphasis on ethical practice and issued a call to the entire industry to do the same, resulting in a terribly positive industry response.
PR practitioners are called to perform their jobs ethically and to abide by a Code of Ethics, as laid out by the Public Relations Society of America.
I work with many public relations practitioners and corporate communicators who act ethically and professionally in every sense of the word. I know that in my corner of the world, I work diligently to uphold that standard, going so far as to include an ethics statement on every client contract I sign. In other words, I agree to act ethically, but I also ask my clients to do the same. If they don't or won't agree, we don't do business.
I also believe our local schools, i.e.; Texas Christian University, University of Texas at Arlington and University of North Texas, do an excellent job in raising awareness of basic ethics issues likely to arise, either by requiring students to take a PR ethics course or by consistent discussion of ethical issues within the context of other public relations courses.
I'm proud to be part of a profession that has an ethics code and works to follow it, even to the point of educating new practitioners about ethical issues.
If Schnurman and Blow disagree with Chesapeake's direction, they should offer a meatier argument than not liking the venue (shale.tv) and printing inflammatory statements about PR. For all their posturing, by choosing to attack PR efforts - without a counterbalanced perspective - they're actually communicating more about the current state of journalism than the current state of PR.
I too am proud to be a Communications/PR professional. I think that what concerns many in the mainstream media is the notion that our audiences are getting more information directly from the organizations and companies rather than from traditional media. Newspapers are trying to see where they fit into this new communication model: a dialogue between us and our stakeholders. This is why it is imperative for PR people to maintain our integrity in and with counseling our companies/orgs or clients.
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt that PR plays an important role in the dissemination of information.
ReplyDeleteThe issue, I think, with Chesapeake, is that they've maintained all along with both Shale.tv and the "Citizens of the Shale" infomercial that the information they're presenting is unbiased and an honest examination of the benefits and risks of urban natural gas production.
I find that a little insulting to my intelligence. I know that Chesapeake and their PR folks are not going to deliberately and directly LIE to me for fear of legal action, but I also know that there's no way in hell they're going to provide more than a cursory glance at the negative aspects of their proposed actions because ultimately they're out to make a profit and garner support. I think so long as everyone acknowledges the rules of the game -- i.e. not trying to hide the fact that these PR efforts amount to a sales pitch on behalf of urban gas drilling, no one would complain. Chesapeake has made the mistake of trying to look like they have Fort Worth's best interests at heart and that they're "taking care of us," and instead of coming off as a paternal move, it's come off as patronizing.
There's also been a bit of multiple personality disorder up there in OKC. On the one hand you've got the company taking out ads about how good gas drilling is for Fort Worth (and actually taking out the exact same ads with different city names in other plays), and then you've got Julie Wilson phrasing things in terms of "the Barnett Shale play" instead of the major city that sits on top of said "play."
And that, I think, is the ultimate problem with how Chesapeake has operated -- they don't see a city of nearly 700,000 people, with outstanding cultural, community, and educational institutions, a vibrant nightlife, great outdoor recreational areas, and all the other things Fort Worth has to offer. What they (and I hate personifying a corporation as much as the next guy) see is trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. They only see and are concerned about what's under the ground, or at least that's what they've demonstrated by their words and actions, starting with the Trinity Trees hubbub and continuing through the astroturfing on my blog and the ridiculous Tommy Lee Jones ads.
There are a lot of other companies working to drill in urban Fort Worth, most of which aren't spending anywhere near as much money on PR as CHK. We only hear about CHK because while they've been the most effusive (generous is not the right word) with their donations to various organizations and sponsorship of community events, they've also committed the most egregious missteps and acted with the biggest sense of entitlement and with no seeming concern for the people who'll be left in Fort Worth when they're done "play"-ing in the Barnett Shale.
Pete,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input. How Mitch Schnurman and Steve Blow chose to express their opinions on shale.tv was - and still is - unacceptable. Rather than keeping the message on focus, they chose to denigrate the entire PR profession, referring to PR practitioners as a "bunch of chumps" and that any journalist who left the profession for a PR position was going "to the dark side." Even other S-T reporters admitted this was out of line.
As for shale.tv, Julie Wilson clarified the venture as being a creative venue for corporate advocacy. That message somehow got "lost" by mainstream media.