2/11 - Mike London Summary, Stephen Ortiz (Shane Goodrich)

2/11 Mike London Summary

Speaker: Mike London
Stephen Ortiz
Discussion Leader: Shane Goodrich

The first topic of discussion Shane had was our thoughts on public relations in general. He said that we are taught that it is some evil thing, but then asked if anyone thought if there were some good aspects to it or was it simply a burden.

Katie felt that public relations isn’t the problem, it’s the journalists. She went on to give an example of a job she was working in which press releases and other materials supplied by public relations firms assisted her greatly in putting together stories on news that there just wasn’t much to. She finished her statement by saying that it is OK to work with P.R. people, but it is the job of the journalists to find out how believable everything they are saying is.

Other students agreed and the discussion changed focus to video news releases (VNR) and how amazing it was to learn that the footage supplied by the public relations firms most of the time goes untouched and airs as is, without the station trying to find the other side of the story.

One student felt that these VNR’s shows just how lazy reporters and stations can be. She also said that these media packages that are distributed to the stations are sold to the people as news, unchanged, but ultimately it is still the fault of the broadcaster for not doing anything about it.

Another student brought up the observation that if public relations is done poorly the it is bad for the client, and if journalism is done poorly, it is bad for the public. The two are very similar. To return to Shane’s original statement, public relations shouldn’t be a burden if their work is done correctly, and that is not only on the firm’s part but also on the part of the public and journalists working with them.

Shane’s next question was when VNR’s are aired on a broadcast news show without any change, should the public be warned in some way either by the anchor before the clip or text somewhere on the screen during the video.

Pat brought up the point that it depends on the venue. He said that VNR’s are often shown on light news/entertainment shows like the “Today Show.” If it was aired on a local news show, then it should be labeled. There was then a brief debate as to whether or not the “Today Show” counted as a news program.

Alyssa fiercely disagreed. She believed that the “Today Show” is purely for entertainment and that product placement and VNR’s serve as features (i.e. hot holiday toys). She then went on to discuss how she feels public relations is like shoplifting; it’s OK as long as you don’t get caught. She felt that the reporters at the Courant need to find the courage to ask the public relations people if they wrote the op-eds or not, and not just sit there and allow them to walk all over them. She then closed her argument with how she felt the “Today Show” is definitely not a news program.

Katie continued Alyssa’s point of how the Courant needs to shape up. As someone who has worked there, she felt that the publication was a shell of what it used to be as it has cut much of its staff and changed a lot of how it works. The op-ed pieces are just an example of how hollow it has become and that it is no better than shows like the “Today Show.”

Alex brought up the issue that it is hard to not get some slant in a story no matter what it is. It’s hard to capture both sides of a story fully, without letting one side have more sway in an article.

Britton argued that it is up to the T.V. stations to get the other side of the story when they are given VNRs instead of just running what they have and taking the easy way out.

Shane agreed and said that it is not public relations’ fault, but rather up to the journalists to do more to be better reporters.

The class seemed to agree that we must use public relations as a tool in any story, and that public relations firms are important to journalism. Joe felt that it is an important source and that public relations is necessary to our trade.

Take Away Cards Transcribed:

Katie Bushey: P.R. seems to get a bad rap but it’s journalism’s fault for not catching them “red handed,” so to speak.

Jesse Grab: If P.R. functions to get across an underrepresented point-of-view, in an ideal world where journalism tells the full truth, does P.R. have a purpose?

Beren Jones: He stressed telling the truth as being of almost foremost importance and while none of the examples he gave seemed to hold anything out, they did seem to tip-toe a fine line between lying and deception, which the P.R. firm seemed quite adept at.

Alyssa Carroll: Overall, P.R. seems sort of dirty in a way. The fact that Mr. London knew he was stretching the rules of the Courant seems unethical, but even more shocking was that he said the reporter knew not to ask. It seems as though P.R. needs more of a conscience and journalists need to not be puppets.

Amanda Wisniowski: I was surprised on how much news was manufactured by P.R. firms and the like.

Stephen Ortiz: I found it surprising how much a background in journalism can help you succeed in the P.R. world.

No name 1: A public relation person’s role is sometimes to create a story that wouldn’t necessarily be there otherwise.

No name 2: It is fascinating how P.R. people like Mike ride an ethical razor wire every single day and with every client. He seemed honest and responsible; we can only hope that’s the case with most P.R. people.