Discussion: Press Credentials for Non-Press Professionals

/1 Comment/in , /by
Reading the newspaper: Brookgreen Gardens in P...Image via Wikipedia

We are going to try something a little different in this space. Occassionally, chapter members will start an e-mail discussion over a topic where a group is CC’d in and then the “Reply to all” game is played. I will say often these discussions are interesting and lead to offline dialogue or other networking opportunities.

One such discussion recently developed:

GFW Chapter President, Andra Bennett, APR, sent out an e-mail concerning a PR ethics question raised by Fot Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bud Kennedy. Kennedy wrote:

“So when a PR person is gathering newsfilm — Do they get a press credential?”

He was referencing this post in the Texas Politics Blog related Chuck McDonald, a Lobbyist/PR guy, having press credentials and being on the Texas House floor for Gov. Perry State of the State address.

The Discussion Begins
The ensuing e-mails were pretty thoughtful and interesting. At one point in the discussion I ask the group if anyone minded me putting some of this down for a blog post since others might benefit from the discussion.

I was given the green light, so here’s what’s been said on the issue:

Video news releases have been around for 20+ years. VNR-1 — I never heard of them asking for “press credentials.” They knew they were on the PR side. That is all changing now…

I personally do not think they should have press credentials if they are being paid by clients to support a lobbying function, whether they are “registered” as a lobbyist or not.

McDonald’s website is a fine idea, but his mistake was that he didn’t play by the rules, and that came back to bite him and cast (once again!) all PR people in a poor ethical light.

-=-=-=-=-

McDonald’s tactics disgust me.  If we don’t respect the news media as being a different animal from us, meriting the privilege of “press credentials,” then we ultimately weaken the public’s confidence in the news media. Which in turn weakens the impact we can have for our clients.

-=-=-=-=-

In this age of citizen media, any organization that seeks to restrict access to information on the base of credentialing is risking its reputation. It just doesn’t make sense anymore. My 11 year old niece could shoot video from her phone that could be played on CNN — so why shouldn’t she and everyone like her have access to the same information at the same time?

-=-=-=-=-

I think there are three issues, or questions here:

1) Was what Chuck McDonald did okay, or was it wrong? Wrong. But, in my opinion, only because he was a registered lobbyist, and rules prohibit registered lobbyists from being on the floor of the Texas House when the chamber is in session.

2) Should PR people be able to obtain press credentials? Certainly. We’re in the news business, one way or another. If press credentials are required for obtaining access to the gathering of information a public relations professional needs to perform his or her job, and the public relations professional obtains the credentials in an above-board, legal manner, what’s the problem? For instance, yesterday IBM’s CEO, Sam Palmisano, was at the podium with President Obama, talking about the economic stimulus plan and the support it was receiving from IBM and other corporations. To have full access to that historic moment, should an IBM public relations staff person, or a person from a public relations firm representing IBM, been able to request and receive through the White House press credentials to be a part of and capture in photographs, film and/or audio that moment for archives and IBM “promotional” purposes, without having to rely on getting material from the news media? Absolutely. Should a public relations person working with a press credential purport to be a part of the “news media?” Absolutely not. We should always be above board about who we are, what we are doing and what are our interest level and intent. As a matter of information, the material from Washington yesterday that is being posted internally within IBM is from the White House and media sources, such as CNN, the Wall Street Journal, etc., and is appropriately labeled as being from those sources. And with my PR hat on, you can check out some video here.

3) How should material be handled by a public relations person who has gotten the material via a press credential? Straight forward and in an honest manner. If the presentation of the material has been altered in any way, it should be designated as not being an actual representation of what took place. In other words, that it’s not a news production, but rather a public relations production, on behalf of a “client.” Thus, it’s not only the manner in which the material is obtained, but also the manner in which the material is presented. With full disclosure in obtaining and using information, it then is up to the audiences to determine the validity and value of the information that is being communicated to them. In that regard, I had no problem with Shale.TV, since it was fully disclosed it was going to be a Chesapeake production and not a “news production,” but as most of you know, I had some serious issues with the manner in which Shale.TV was introduced and communications that were associated with the launch, which ultimately turned into a no-go.

-=-=-=-=-

Very interesting issue. Great discussion. A few thoughts:
There needs to be a stand on defining journalism and/or degrees of journalism. Without licensing (God forbid), journalism is not as distinct a craft as it once was. As we see on the Web, anyone can practice journalism and claim to be a journalist. I’d guess that public perception of who/what journalists are still distinguishes professional journalists from amateurs and professional practitioners of communications for private- and public-sector entities.

Create a different credential for those who are not professional journalists but need access to an event, justifiably. I would not support “press” credentials for non-press folks. “Press” carries a distinct definition, legal boundaries and ethics. One needs to consider how this issue would play out in court. “Are you a member of the press, Ms. X?” No. “Then why were you claiming to be? Doesn’t this credential you were wearing say ‘Press’?”

Labeling a credential as “Press” instantly projects motivations, objectives and expectations that are distinct and not shared by other forms of communication.

Journalists’ constituents are the public. Their motivation is, at least it should be, to present factual reporting, from spot to investigative, free of a private- or public-sector entity’s aims. Enron comes to mind. Should Enron communicators have been issued “press” credentials as all of that coverage unfolded? I think not. Did those communicators deserve the same access to unfolding news events as the “press”? Absolutely. Was FEMA wrong to fake a “news” conference? Of course. Still, this is America after all and all things public are just that — public. Last I heard, public relations practitioners are as “public” as any other person, journalist or not.

I recall a “Far Side” cartoon in which vultures were gathered around the corpse of a ranch hand. One vulture had put the decedent’s hat on his head and was saying: “Hey, everybody, look at me! I’m a cowboy!” Right. Not that PR folks are vultures and journalists are dead meat. I’m just saying that “press” credentials should be issued only to practicing professional journalists. To be honest and ethical, let credentials label the press as such and come up with some other label for non-press.

-=-=-=-=-
What do you think? Please weigh in via comments. The floor is yours.

Putting Ethics into PR Practice

/1 Comment/in , /by

This post first appeared in The Saltlick blog by Linda Jacobson, APR

After listening to Doug Newsom, grande dame of public relations, speak about the ethical situations in which a public relations professional can become mired, I was surprised to hear her tell of how she resigned a position because she was asked to do something unethical. And in her words, she had four children to support at the time. The show-and-tell of that kind of moxie is really needed so that those of us in the public relations profession understand that, where the stakes are high, resigning just might be the appropriate action.

Newsom delivered several powerful lessons from her 40 years’ experience at the Nov. 13 Greater Fort Worth/Dallas PRSA meeting. Chief among them:

1. Stand your ground. When dealing with senior execs, more than likely you’re dealing with strong opinions and strong personalities. You have expertise in your field – expertise that the CEO counts on hearing.

2. Understand the culture of the corporation. As Newsom pointed out, when it comes to communication, companies range from closed to open. Know where the company/client falls on that continuum, and decide if your personal values fit that culture. If not, you’ll likely encounter some conflicts when sensitive issues arise.

3. Adhere to an ethics model. She specifically discussed a utilitarian model, which supports decision-making of doing the greatest good for the greatest number, or a communitarian ethics model, which stresses morality in the community and being a good “corporate citizen.” She mentioned Mitch Land’s book, Contemporary Media Ethics, which I highly recommend. Land and co-editor Hornaday present multiple case studies of PR ethics problems, considering them from both perspectives, so the reader can see the difference in the two models.

Newsom also discussed two likely ethics dilemmas with the audience and then stuck around to answer questions.

Her message, so needed in today’s transparent world, was timeless and a good reminder to anyone in the communications business.

A Cancelled Experiment

/1 Comment/in /by

The natural gas online education program channel, Shale.TV has been canceled before their first show. Chesapeake Energy, citing “economic challenges” faced by the country and the industry, announced the move to abandon its online media venture.

GFW PRSA recently had Chesapeake’s VP, corporate development, Barnett Shale Division, come speak to the chapter about some of the company’s communications/PR tactics. She provided some excellent insights based on a wealth of experience and knowledge to listeners.

I was very interested in the Shale.TV information she touched on during th Q&A:

Q – When Shale.tv was announced, your quote may have been heard as demeaning to PR?
A – It was not meant to be demeaning to PR. I think news teams took it personally. I do think it is important to understand difference between corporate advocacy and mainstream journalism. Media is changing. We are doing an experiment and we’ll see how it goes.

Unfortunately, we won’t get to see how that experiment goes. I was very interested in how this corporate advocacy channel would do for their audience. I was looking forward to hearing about the successes and/or failures of the venture that brought in some recognizable media talent. This looked like an interesting PR challenge for the company.

I will give credit to Chesapeake for the Shale.TV idea. So what if it ruffled some feathers of some media friends. (It was probably more problematic to Chesapeake to have the local community up in arms.)  It would have been interesting to see what kind of measurable impact this experimental venture could have produced for the company.

We all know media is in a state of flux as is the PR industry. With so many tools and tricks to figure out and try, I think more experimentation with creative and unique ideas will only help us be that much more effective for our companies, organizations, and clients.
(photo credit: confusedvision)

Live Blogging PRSA Chapter Experiment

/0 Comments/in /by

We have another excellent program planned today for the Greater Fort Worth PRSA chapter luncheon:

“There’s not only Natural Gas, but PR, in the Barnett Shale”
Presented by: Julie Wilson, APR, past president of the Greater Fort Worth Chapter PRSA, and vice president, corporate development, Barnett Shale Division, Chesapeake Energy Corporation

To say that Chesapeake’s public relations activities and some of Julie’s remarks have generated publicity, conversation and even some controversy, is like saying that Ike was a pretty good Texas thunderstorm. When the objectivity of Chesapeake’s new venture, Shale.TV, was questioned, Julie responded, “If we need to be a leader in brand-new media sources, we think that’s great. We’re willing to take the skepticism or criticism because we think time will prove this out. And we’re patient.”

Julie has graciously agreed to share her tactics and views with us and she’ll respond to questions during the luncheon.

And Now for Something a Little Different

As a service to our members and the interested community, I will attempt to conduct a live blogging stream in the next post for those that wish to follow along or those that cannot make the luncheon. My hope is that we can share with you some of the tacticts, strategies, and questions and answers that will no doubt be of interest to a large number of people. We’ll try this experiment and see if this is something we’d like to continue to provide for future programs.

Diversity Without Opportunity is Just Talk

/0 Comments/in , /by
(This post fist appeared Thursday, August 14, on the Next Communications Blog) 

I attended the Greater Fort Worth Chapter PRSA’s August luncheon and meeting where the group heard from a panel on diversity.

The topic, Working Diversity into the Workplace promised to be at best, an interesting approach to something that seems fundamental OR at worst, a nice way to get out of the office and have some pretty good fajitas.

Personal aside: It was kind of funny that we had our diversity session at a famous Mexican restaurant in Fort Worth.
(Thanks, Terry.)

Photo credit: chrisjfry

The People
We were introduced to a panel that included:

  • Mitch Hill, Baylor Hospital (social worker)
  • Leah King, Chesapeake Energy (community relations)
  • Tom Burke, IBM (communications/public relations)
  • Dora Tovar, Tovar PR (public relations)
  • Ken Reeves, Bell Helicopter (human resources)

I was immediately struck by the make-up of the group. Aside from the obvious male/female/ethnic differences, our chapter diversity chair had an interesting mix of PR and non-PR professionals. I had an idea of how PR can help address diversity to build and maintain relationships. What I was looking forward to was seeing how this group would approach the topic.

Thoughts on diversity vs. culture
Here are a few of the thoughts that resonated with me:

Mitch Hill thinks we wear many masks and take on multiple cultures.

“There is diversity within myself,” he said. “Once we understand this about ourselves, we can move forward.”

Leah King said she lived oversees and takes a much broader approach to diversity.

Tom Burke pointed out how IBM approaches diversity.

“[IBM is] welcoming everyone to the workplace regardless of differences un-related to their job functions.”

Letter from IBM’s Vice President of Global Workforce Diversity, Ron Glover

Tom also made what I thought to be an excellent point about our topic.

“Diversity is not created, it already exists.”

Dora Tovar spoke more on culture, telling the group that culture in the U.S. is very individual and is in constant change.

“Those that can adapt and change will be the most marketable.”

She also pointed out that diversity is about representation and culture is about identity.

Ken Reeves followed Tovar and gave his perspective on diversity stating that it is not just about representation, it’s about opportunity. He explained how as an ex-NFL player he had to develop a strategy to diversify himself and about the corporate strategy at Bell Helicopter related to diversity.

“Until [diversity] translates into opportunity for everyone, it’s just talk.”

Moving forward
Each of the panelists brought an enlightened perspective on diversity that went beyond the typical race, ethnicity, sex, religions, etc.

Also, going back to Mitch Hill’s reference, the mask metaphor, in my opinion, is fundamental to human communication. It is a great explainer for the different roles we play on a daily basis. We are different (diversity within ourselves) depending on our audience. When I am at home, I play the husband and father roles. At work, my mask is that of a communications/PR professional. With friends…With other family members…With new people…etc. These are all roles that are within me. We all have the different masks to wear. It’s not hiding. It’s playing the role of a human.

Lastly, the notion that diversity without opportunity is a significant next step. It is not about checking off boxes to make sure your company has this many women or that many Latinos. It is about recognizing the business strategy, objectives, and benefits behind a diversity opportunities.

What do you think? Do you consider yourself to be personally diverse? Do you think you wear masks? Can diversity translate into opportunity?