How Much Of That All Important Journalism Is Really PR?
from the more-than-half,-apparently dept
We get pitched stories from PR people all the time, and probably 99.9% of them end up getting ignored and trashed -- mostly because they're not even close to relevant, but often because we have no interest in being someone's free promotional team. What's amusing, however, is that invariably, days after we get pitched on certain stories, I end up seeing them appear in all sorts of mainstream publications, including some of the biggest and "most trusted" names in journalism.And yet we keep getting told that we need to "support" this all important newspaper industry so they can carry on with the important democracy-saving task of journalism?
Last year, we noted that some attempts to count how many stories a newspaper actually reported on each day showed that the numbers were woefully low -- just a handful per day, with the rest all filled in with fluff and wire service copy. But it gets even more ridiculous once you realize that many of the "stories" that reporters worked on were really little more than gussied up press releases turned into "articles."
Boing Boing points us to a recent study in Australia that looked at a week's worth of newspaper stories, and found that more than half were placed by PR people, though there was definitely a pretty wide range depending on the newspaper.
This seems like a pretty important finding to be included in any debate about "saving" newspapers -- especially when the government is talking about stepping in to tax others to prop up newspapers. If all they're really doing is propping up efforts to run wire copy and run thinly veiled advertisements-as-news, is that really what the government should be supporting? It seems we have this mental "ideal" of journalism, represented by Woodward and Bernstein, holding politicians accountable for their actions -- but that rarely happens in practice. Instead, too much of traditional journalism has become notetaking -- writing down what politicians and PR people say and repeating it back to an audience that could find that information themselves if they wanted it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, pr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Media Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Today
I wouldn't say it's dead. I still know a lot of journalists who are honestly passionate about the idea of playing an important role in society, and it does happen -- but because they are so passionate and actually have real integrity, they tend to believe that investigative journalism is what newspapers are all about, even though it's actually a tiny portion of the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what I forgot to tell you was that "Trollin' Time" is worth it. Lake Powell, Sun, Beaches, and trollin' for fish are worth it. NO INTERWEBS OR PHONES ALLOWED!
Just remember, Mike's not invited but his dog is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does wire copy come from?
And who do you think owns the Associated Press?
Believe it or not, it's a cooperative owned by US Newspaper companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where does wire copy come from?
Yes, newspapers contribute to the AP, but the majority of the wire material comes from AP staff journalists nowadays. But nobody is saying that content sharing and distributed reporting are bad things -- the point is that the average newspaper contributes very little original reporting.
In the past, that didn't matter, because if you could start up a newspaper in a market with low or no competition, fill it with cheap copy and pack it with ads and classifieds, then distribute it with retail flyers and catalogues, you could make a killing. But the internet has taken a massive chunk out of that industry, and now in a lot of markets there are a way more newspapers than there need to be. Many of them doing almost nothing to elevate the public knowledge and conversation about current events -- but that's what they are always touting as the reason they must survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where does wire copy come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems we have this mental "ideal" of journalism, represented by Woodward and Bernstein, holding politicians accountable for their actions -- but that rarely happens in practice.
Right, politicians are really worried about the continued existence of something that holds them accountable, no dice. The obvious dichotomy is that if the government desires it, then it is beneficial(or at the very least not harmful) to incumbents.
This is a group that does absolutely everything to put in place policies that make it more difficult to replace existing Congressmen. And anybody that's read a newpaper recently knows that the vast majority of articles merely regurgitate the talking points provided by the politicians themselves; they basically serve as free publicity, and if anybody thinks that government subsidies would not be used to coerce pro-government writing then I have a piece of land to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and they wonder why
-Chris Mitchell, editor in chief of The Australian
No s**t Chris; Really? It has been obvious for a while now that news, is "news entertainment", and nothing more. Start providing real journalism, something which if done correctly would have tremendous value. **SMACK** sorry I am daydreaming again. "Real journalism" Who am I kidding? LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Sorry State of Affairs
If the reporter new what he was talking about and was after a real story, I would have expected a "big" article on how the fight against piracy is taking away our privacy (internet filtering) and making us all criminals. Instead of tackling this real issue, the Times simply takes a poor utility meter and makes it a poster child for how our privacy could be abused. And this is news! How absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So very true....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this clearly, but if the "advertising" is "veiled" then it's missing the point. The point of advertising is content, content is advertising is that everything is out in the open. It's not PR pretending to be news.
You seem to be interpreting ads as content;content as ads as tricking people. But that's not what it's about at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. But again, you seem to think that the *annoying* ads are what we're talking about. We're not. We're talking about creating content people WANT to see. You keep pointing to examples of content people don't want. Which is what's known as bad advertising.
We're talking about creating *good* content. The type of content people seek out, not try to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BMWfilms.
Techdirt (tooting our own horn a bit, but the TD content advertises our other services).
Superbowl ads (recent study showed more people watch for the ads than the game)
Music (advertising concerts and such)
Honda cog commercial.
the old spice body wash commercial with millions of YouTube views.
I mean the list goes on and on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I, however, didn't buy a BMW but still . . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may not buy a BMW today, possibly never. But you will share those videos and (possibly unconsciously) elude your appreciation of the BMW brand. People you influence may, in turn, buy a BMW (or continue the influence chain).
The fact is, if you went out of your way to watch and ad...then it worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This works well in business realms -- If a news website publishes, say, a sponsored federal budget analysis by the Chief Economist of a major bank, what's wrong with that? Anyone in the industry will find that information interesting and will know how to interpret it under the circumstances, and if seeing some ads for the bank and some links to their investment services alongside the article means they get to read it for free, that seems like a pretty good deal. They might even actually want some of those investment services, and be grateful for the ads.
That's such a tough thing to really imagine, given how accustomed we are to being irritated by advertising. But the fact is that there are products and services out there that everyone wants, and advertising can be useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
information is out there online for any person who wants to intelligently research any topic
This has really been bothering me for a while now. Most newspapers are mostly wire service words.
If not for AP , Reuters et al , there would be no news in newspapers ,,( except the real biggies like the NY times, and Wash. Post etc,)
But information is out there online for any person who wants to intelligently research any topic , news or otherwise. So hopefully as a whole , we know more about what is going on,
There are so many Think Tanks , lobbys , and PIRGs out there , well Citizen , if you do not know who your Congressman is , well , do not blame the media.
Special Extra credit Question : The Name of the State Assembly-person who reps your district ? ... where you live ? in 5 seconds.
5 ,,, 4,,, 3,,, 2,,, 1,,,,, Buzzzzzzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I refere to them as -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I refere to them as -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I refere to them as -
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_12/b4171038593210.htm
actually, this is a good one for you to deconstruct mike (the whole thing is actually a hagiography for the ceo's of time-warner and comcast), for instance the gentleman who runs the amc channel is glowingly quoted as saying:
uhm....because your fans/customers want it, and if you don't deliver then they/we/i will look, and very quickly find it, elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
William Randolph Hearst Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like This Drivel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like This Drivel?
Planning For Windows 7 Migration
Clearly States her affiliation right at the top.
"Talking Tech By Liz Eversoll, vice president, Microsoft Practice, CDW Corporation, Network World March 16, 2010 05:44 PM ET"
What is the problem?
Oh I forgot Microsoft = Evil Right?
I use both Linux & Windows. I should be Shot�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save the newspaper! (Search Engine)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cross-check
So read the paper... It goes good with a cup of coffee, but know that just because it's in print doesn't mean it's gospel. On the other hand, just because the source for an article has some bias doesn't necessarily make it false either.
Basic rule -- any "facts" from the news media that really make a difference to you had better be cross-checked from multiple sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Oh, goodness no. I'm not a journalist and I link to traditional press in most of my posts. I want people reading journalists. I'm not saying that traditional journalists are worthless at all, and I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. I'm saying that the claims of the all importance of traditional newspapers is highly exaggerated, given the amount of actual reporting they do.
I'm sorry if you felt I implied something different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Much Of That All Important Journalism Is Really PR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Syndicated" content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]