Ridiculous PR and objectivity

Wikipedia requires contributors to write from a 'neutral point of view' and its founder Jimmy Wales discourages edits from PR practitioners because their view is deemed, as paid advocates, to be biased. (There's currently a lively debate on this topic on a Facebook group.)

This post is not about Wikipedia, but about the struggle for PR to be practised objectively. For, on the face of it, the paid advocate cannot ever be neutral.

It's because PR seems incapable of neutrality - and will always be vulnerable to charges of 'spin' or even deceit - that we should mind our language.

It is because we act as advocates (and have an intermediary role between the organisations and key groups) that we must be mindful of how the organisation is perceived. 

A stream of self-serving, upbeat messages can easily be dismissed as 'just PR'. To be effective, PR must adopt the language and values of news and be written objectively. How does this sound?

• 'Smiley Company are pleased to announce Fun Fridays'

It's wrong in so many ways. It put the organisation at the centre of the story, where it is unlikely to belong. It views the company as plural (we, they) and describes its state of emotion (who cares?). In short, it's not news. It may look like PR (and there's a lot of this about), but it's not ever likely to be effective public relations.

How can ojective public relations improve on this?

• 'Call for Fun Fridays to banish national gloom'

It's still weak, the softest of soft news, but it does raise a topical issue. It's not so smug and doesn't open the organisation to ridicule. At least it's not quite so readily dismissed.

When subjectivity is so inappropriate and so easily-spotted, why is it still so common in public relations statements? The answer has to be group think - the downside of organisational group dynamics - and the desire to please the boss or the client.

But what is more pleasing? Soft words that flatter the boss but fail to deliver any news (and may lead to ridicule); or a more objective approach that removes the self-serving publicity but may deliver greater news impact?

It's the difference between writing with the organisation/client in mind and writing with the reader in mind (the reader, conventionally, being a jaded journalist who has seen it all before).

It's easy to understand, but hard to put into practice. I raise it here because I see so many students and junior practitioners falling into group think and believing that PR means writing in an overly-promotional style.

To respond to Jimmy Wales, we may not be neutral but we can and should be objective.

 

Comments

[Joe Walton]

During issue and crisis management, online communications provides a direct feedback mechanism to see these two approaches in action.

An bland corporate statement given to avoid the dreaded no comment and appease management can now be met with a barrage of abuse. In the past we were never privy to this response, save for the odd letter to the editor, and it's quite illuminating.

[Heather Yaxley]

Richard - I understand your point and agree in terms of overtly puffy language emerging from organizations. However, I have two issues to raise:

1. As PR is inherently partisan then isn't writing in an objective fashion simply an attempt to appear not to be subjective? The reality is that such information has originated with the organization and although it should be factually accurate, it is unlikely to really be objective. I believe a lot of the issue with poorly written material originating from organizations is that it isn't produced as informaiton but to be 'cut and paste' ie preproduced as it is issued.

2. Arising from the above point really - the best promotional material is clearly subjective yet meets the needs of a public. That may be advertising, brochures, direct mail or marketing PR stories - it really doesn't matter. The real issue for me is what is well done and what is poor. I feel that few publicity-oriented PR activities are well done.

I feel we should stop pretending that PR is objective and in some way above publicity. Much of what is done is seeking to promote a product, service or organization - and we should be honest with this.

For me there's no issue in being subjective - let's just be open about this. That doesn't mean writing horrible puff, but learning the skills to provide relevant information to help inform decision making.

[study mode]

So how would you finish that line for Smiley Company then Richard? I'm just curious as there will never seem to be a 100% answer that satisfies us all. I'm even starting to think that the most successful PR campaigns are through mishaps or unplanned opportunities.