Flat Earth debate disappoints It had the potential to be a fantastic debate: a panel discussion with media and PR heavyweights organised by the Press Gazette at the London College of Communications to debate Nick Davies' latest book Flat Earth News.

But in the end it was lightweight. A Flat Earth story in fact. Panelists and questioners largely pursued their own agendas and did little to move the debate forward with no one accepting responsibility for the state of the UK media. Everyone took themselves far too seriously.

Davies set up his premise. “Journalists don’t have time to do their business properly relying instead on recycling stories, wire copy and PR agency fodder,” he said.

To support this thesis Davies commissioned research by a team from Cardiff University’s School of Journalism into the origin of stories in the national media.

Like Observer media columnist Peter Preston I take issue with the Cardiff stats. The conclusion is spot on, but the claim exaggerated. “The four lead stories on the Guardian web site this evening are PR-led based on the Cardiff definition, including the Clinton story,” said Preston.

But Davies’ argument stacks up nonetheless. The PR industry exists to influence the media and attempts to secure coverage for clients.

Anyone equipped with Google can demonstrate the direct connection between press releases and press coverage – often word for word. The PR industry thrives on it; at Rainier PR we celebrate it.

“This is not dishonest. Viewer and readers are not being misled. PRs are enablers of stories. The industry isn’t characterised by stunts and political spin,” said Sally Costerton, UK CEO, Hill & Knowlton and cheerleader for the PR industry.

No one in the PR industry can deny benefiting from churnalism, although Francis Ingham, Director General of the PRCA flatly refused to acknowledge it. But to suggest that PR agencies influence news room agendas is simply bollocks.

The fact is that editorial news rooms are too stretched. Since Murdoch kicked down the print unions in the mid-eighties newspapers have been driven by profit. Boardroom executives seeking commercial return have replaced press barons motivated by ego, who were happy to fund breakeven or loss making operations.

Malcolm Starbrook editor of the East London Advertiser said that the result is reduced staff, casual labour and older staff replaced by lower paid employees all stretched to research, fact check and file copy for an increasing number of media channels. No where is this more apparent than in the regional media.

Perhaps the reason there weren’t any answers forthcoming from the panel or the audience is because there aren’t any. Media groups are shareholder driven organisations that need to turn a profit like any other business.

If the media industry is to find a solution it isn’t going to come from the NUJ. It came in for a lot of stick for its failure to campaign on ethics and clamp down on bad practice.

Andrew Gilligan said the solution lies with individual journalists. He called for them to be braver and opinion led in their reporting. “There’s a lot of he said she said reporting, with both sides of an argument getting an equal voice. Instead we need to dig into stories and uncover who is actually telling the truth”.

Update: H&K's Niall Cook was also disappointed.

Labels: after work, media, PR

  Permalink |