Guest post: Why do journos always look for the feelbad factor?
In this guest posting, PR Craig Pearce argues that journalists are too negative
In the ever-clichéd – and oh-so-simplistic – battle between the good and evil of public relations and journalism, it is journalism that is more often the devil incarnate.
Mainstream media, when given a choice between a good-news and a feel-bad story, well, you know which way the editor/chief of staff/producer is going to go. There is no decision for most editors and journalists to make between running a story with a positive, hopeful perspective and that of a negative perspective.
A recent example of this is the particularly mean-spirited coverage across mainstream media of Socceroo Tim Cahill. Cahill had media fingers pointing at him for being drunk and booted out of a nightclub. It ends up there was no case to answer.
Of course, we only have ourselves to blame. Presumably we buy/tune in/search for/respond to the media that features the negative vibes.
Building relationships
Public relations, in opposition to the majority of contemporary mainstream media, helps build and maintain relationships. Its intent is the opposite of media’s reality, which is seemingly to be divisive. When operating at its optimum, strategic potential, public relations is about helping organisations and their stakeholders (often large swathes of society) understand and empathise with each other.
At its absolute apogee, public relations can help both organisations and their stakeholders change their behaviours so all parties are more aligned with each other. It is not about pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes, it is not about propaganda. It is about all relevant parties helping to see each other more clearly and with greater equanimity.
If you use the metaphor of law, media takes a confrontational, litigious approach, whereas public relations is more negotiation and, to a lesser degree, conciliation-centred.
Why so negative?
One day I would like someone in the Fourth Estate to show me the research that proves we do predominantly want the negative stories/focus and it does help the media moguls make money.
If was proven scientifically the community did want all the bad news the media serves up to them, then social commentators and the government and, maybe, selective media would potentially give them a serve for catering to society’s lowest common denominator. By doing that, the logical conclusion is that the media is then actually encouraging a more negative societal mindset.
And if research pointed out that we didn’t want so much bad news or negative/non-hopeful perspectives on issues, then how does that position the media? As undermining people’s aspirations for hope and yearnings for more positive perspectives?
Media, clearly, has an inherent social responsibility. It serves an incredibly important purpose (I’m not going there, but let’s leave just use a few terms like freedom, education, knowledge, community, democracy), but it is a purpose that is often unfulfilled. It is a shame that it has become so debased by its insistence of focusing on the negative.
There are plenty who will argue that the purpose of the media has always been to cater to the community’s predilections, no matter how negative, solipsistic or inane. Equally, however, there are plenty of media apologists who will burn in hell before they budge from the belief that the role and responsibility of media is to get to the heart of, and make public, key issues that impact on society.
The black and white, for and against, media raison d’être argument is:
- It exists purely to make money for its owners/shareholders
- It provides a social service for the good of all society.
Media survives on public relations’ assistance
Of course, it’s a symbiotic relationship between public relations and the media and there are multiple examples of crossover between them. But the media – with the ever-increasing destruction of its resources by the moguls continuing apace – should realise what a good wicket/pitch/court/etc they are on when PR professionals do so much of their work for them:
- Research
- Creative (and often socially important) story ideas
- The lining up of 3rd party interviewees
- Issues options
- Opinion piece drafting
- Helping interviewees speak coherently (oh the media will love this; and yes I despise media coaching when its gets to its governmental anti-apex of ultra-spin, but there really is a mutually agreeable middle ground!).
Without the provision of information from PR professionals to B2B media the existence of that sector would, in particular, be profoundly threatened. It simply would not have the resources to exist. And with some statistics saying that 80% of mainstream media stories are generated, or extensively assisted, by PR initiatives, then media as a whole might not be far from the scrapyard as well
At the end of the day, journalists should thank their stars for the PR industry. They would be lost without us.
Craig Pearce is a freelance PR professional with 14 years business communication experience. A version of this piece appears on his blog.
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large. He returned to Mumbrella as Publisher in January 2025
Linkedin
Craig, you are a masterful PR professional to be able to spin this one!
You use B2B media as an example of an industry that uses PR proefssionals a lot, however you might find that the coverage in these publications is overwhelmingly positive. That is how B2B publications work, be positive about the industry in general, perhaps a few negative stories to balance, but overwhelmingly positive reports of new products and services lightly rewritten from press releases.
Many media commentators have lamented the reliance on PR for stories,as budgets have been slashed across MSM (something that happened well before the GFC advertising crash). This has made MSM less relevant to many people, with an increasing reliance on blogs and social media. PR people are always working for someone, often someone who wants to minimise the impact of policies that are less than friendly to the community at large.
I cant help but guffaw at your last statement “At the end of the day, journalists should thank their stars for the PR industry. They would be lost without us.”
A real journalist, serving in the public interest, knows that the message proffered by the PR professional is just that, a manufactured message. The only ones who are “lost without you” are the lazy, overworked and ineffectual journalists that give little insight.
User ID not verified.
Whoever it was that said it is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it has just been vindicated.
User ID not verified.
Okay – can we now compare this, to Jason Whittaker’s painful diatribe from a few weeks ago? A bit of balance, a coherent argument backed up by evidence, and no emotion. Brilliant.
I think it is obvious that public relations as an industry, and as a profession, has still not yet reached maturity. But it now appears on the right track – away from spin, and towards promoting responsible behaviour and open communication within the community at large.
Every message is manufactured – the fact that a bit more thought has gone into how to communicate it, does not make it any less relevant or authentic.
It is up to everyone – journalists, PR practitioners, the community at large – to reject spin, misinformation and irresponsibility. After all – everyone organisation is made up of people – not monsters.
The role PR is going continue to expand as a result growing social web. What this new era of communication will do is ensure that the attitudes, behaviours and body language of organisations are in tune with their stakeholders – namely, you and me – and provide for genuine two way communication. There will be no other choice.
Don’t worry, be happy.
And yes, i will still read page 7 of the AFR – as long as its free.
User ID not verified.
That shutdown was all-time haha. Instant classic.
User ID not verified.
I can’t believe that anyone would seriously question why journalists favour negative (real) stories and PRs put a positive spin on everything. It is almost too obvious to answer!
As for journalists relying on PRs, as editor of a business mag, yes I do work with and appreciate my PR colleagues’ input, but I don’t rely on them and certainly wouldn’t be lost without them. It would not be an impossible task to produce features about business without commentary from PR people.
When I was a newspaper reporter however, I would never have relied on a PR person’s views as truth. Their role back then was always damage limitation.
As far as suggesting journos should thanks their stars for PR people, that suggests they’re the ones doing us favours and we never do them any back. Where would the PRs be without the coverage we choose to give them? It works both ways.
User ID not verified.
hilarious. a milquetoast!
User ID not verified.
this conversation just goes round and round and ends up in the same place.
the fair conclusion is that pr and the media share a mutualistic relationship and should regard eachother equally.
User ID not verified.
For what’s worth, although Craig makes his argument well, I disagree.
The positive force of journalism comes from telling people what’s going on – everything from the time of the local club meeting, to government plans to raise / lower taxes to the shonky tradie to avoid, to what time The Chaser’s on tonight. That’s all a positive contribution that many wouldn’t particularly recognise as “good” news.
I used to news edit a local paper where we had a happy-news-story-on-every-even-page policy. And it was hard going to write and even harder going to read.
The nature of news is you tell the readers the thing that is going to have the biggest impact on their lives.
Trains running on time is not news. Major delays -so make alternative plans – is.
Media’s responsibility is to tell their readers/ viewers/ listeners what they will find useful or interesting to know – not to give them a utopian view where all is right with the world.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
The media thrives on conflict, especially on the David and Goliath scale. Conflict is, by its nature, negative. Journalists have generally moved from disdaining PR to relying on it and that relationship is akin to the beaten wife who keeps returning for more.
User ID not verified.
Why has the date stamp on this story been changed from April 1?
User ID not verified.
This is an age old debate, and one that never fails to entertain. Journos often criticise PR folks for being obstructive or evasive, but I consider my role (as a PR consultant) to be largely one of facilitation.
For example, this week I discovered (after the fact) that a journo had gone direct to a client for some input on a story. The client did not respond to the request (probably due to bandwidth or not appreciating the deadline urgency) so the journo did not get the story input they needed. Journo and client both lose. If the journo had come to us in the first place, we would have ensured they got what they needed – journo and client both win – PR job done.
I’m not suggesting this constitutes media ‘reliance’ on PR, but I do think we smooth the way in many cases, especially when the understanding of how media works (amongst non-media/comms/marketing folks) is generally very poor.
User ID not verified.
Tim, re: local papers and `good news policies’.
I agree that `good’ news is harder to write, but that should not stop journalists trying to do it.
I edit a local paper in an economically depressed part of Sydney, where filling the pages with bad news would be a piece of cake. But why should we take the easy option?
I’ve always made the journos go out and try to find the hopeful stories, the bits of pride and aspiration that people have in their lives and the lives of their kids. I don’t reckon it’s hard to read – I reckon it’s good to read. Obviously you’ve got to balance it with real life, but there’s no harm in helping people feel better about where they live.
If people out in Sydney’s poorer suburbs want to read how shit the rest of Sydney thinks their area is, they can pick up the Tele. If they want to read about their neighbours making the most of their lives, they can turn to the local paper. That’s my vision anyway.
User ID not verified.
Hi Stace,
Thanks for your comments. I totally agree that where there’s good news it should be reported. Where I don’t think it works is where there’s a tokenisitic element to it.
I speak as a veteran of many, many 50th wedding anniversaries, 100th birthday interviews and – goddamit – caged bird shows…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Stace, I am seriously being sincere when I say your attitude is pretty inspirational.
I have had enough interaction with the less privileged side of society to know that having positives to aspire to does make a difference. I think you will find social workers will agree with that. Maybe the media, at least a bit more often than they currently do, could take a leaf or two out of their books?
User ID not verified.
LOL, Tim, it sounds like you worked for the same newspaper I did!
User ID not verified.
The role of a PR pro and the role of a Journalist is different. Both have their own objectives in the shared aim of delivering a message. Both professions are responsible for serving their target markets and, in a perfect world, this would be done in a balanced, educated and fair manner where all angles (PR and journalism) ultimately serve the consumer.
But, in this world, there are PRs and Journalists who sit at every point along the scale of scumbag to credible. I don’t know how the ‘us and them’ mentality can be realistically resolved or diminished but I welcome the efforts of anyone who would at least like to try.
User ID not verified.