RE-ASSESSING THE “PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW” The shift from journalism to political PR (original) (raw)
Related papers
In journalism, public relations and political communications scholarship journalism and parliamentary media advising have been defined in opposition to each other. This is most notably observed in the ubiquitous stereotypes of the journalist as democratic ‘watchdog’ and the parliamentary media adviser1 as Machiavellian ‘spin doctor’. Both of these stereotypes carry ethical assumptions about each of the two roles. On the one hand is the journalist whose professional identity is tied to its role in democracy serving the ideals of truth, fairness, scrutiny and informing in the public interest. On the other hand is the ‘spin doctor’ whose use of morally dubious tactics of lying, manipulation, control, persuasion and advocacy in the interest of a client are seen to be undermining democracy. Based on the reflections of twenty-one reporters who have worked as both journalists and parliamentary media advisers this paper argues that these oversimplified antithetical stereotypes do not adequately reflect the more complex reality of either role. This paper is part of broader doctoral research which draws on the traditions of phenomenology to examine the under-explored phenomenon of journalists who make the transition from reporter to parliamentary media adviser and back again. Using grounded theory strategies this qualitative research project examines a range of issues related to the career transition including power relations between the two roles and conceptions of ethical conflict. Instead of the black and white oppositional portrayal of the two roles the study found the interviewees perceived many similarities between journalism and parliamentary media advising, including shared skills and goals. Based on their individual lived experience of the two roles some of the study participants perceived the goals of ‘informing’ and ‘advocacy’ to be shared by both journalism and media advising and not confined to either role. In response to these findings, this paper argues it is time to address the inadequacy of such oversimplified oppositional stereotypes and adopt a more nuanced understanding of the two roles based on the varied perceptions of individual practitioner experience.
The Disclosure Dilemma: Returning to Journalism after Political Media Advising
The principle of transparency in journalism, including disclosure of journalistic processes and reporters’ personal interests, has been enthusiastically embraced. However there has been little focus on the possible harm disclosure can have on a reporter’s reputation. This paper reports on a selection of findings from wider inductive, qualitative research into the transition from journalism to political media advising and back again. Semi-structured interviews with twenty-one journalists who had moved between the two roles revealed the interviewees faced a dilemma about disclosing their previous political work history because of concern about inviting a suspicion of partisanship from others. In response, the interviewees adopted five key strategies to disclosing their political employment: Being ‘up front’; ‘Flying below the radar’; ‘Keeping it a secret’; ‘Selective disclosure; and, ‘Overcompensation’. Based on these findings this paper argues that the seemingly simple principle of transparency can have complex ramifications which need to be considered when advocating disclosure of interests by journalists.
2014
This thesis examines the under-explored career transition between two roles at the centre of political communicationthe journalist and the parliamentary media adviser. They are two roles commonly portrayed as antithetical to each other, locked in a power struggle over the control of information. This oppositional framing is most easily recognised in the ubiquitous binary stereotypes of the 'watchdog' journalist scrutinising government, seeking truth and informing in the public interest; and the manipulative 'spin-doctor' engaged in advocacy, Since the arrival of the "press agent" in the 1920s the number of public relations professionals has risen rapidly. By the 1980s and 1990s, Mayhew (1997) said the trend toward employing public relations practitioners "exploded" with political consultants, media specialists, public opinion pollsters, professional grassroots organizers, specialised lobbyists, focus group organisers and demographic researchers assuming increasingly influential roles (p. 4). Deacon & Golding (1991; 1994) argued governments became wise to the advantages of being able to use tax payer funds to promote its policies, which lead to the emergence of what has been coined the
TEN SHADES OF TRUTH: A study of Australian Journalists’ shift to Political PR
The use of manipulative overt and covert ‘spin’ tactics by parliamentary media advisers to embellish, obfuscate and evade has been well documented. However, there has been less attention paid to the way journalists adapt to ‘spin’ culture and interpret truth once they become parliamentary media advisers. Based on inductive analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews with twenty-one Australian journalists who made the transition to parliamentary media advising, this paper offers a typology of ten subtle approaches to truth telling adopted by these journalists in their new role as political media advisers. The interview data revealed a range of pragmatic approaches including: ‘triage’, ‘putting the best foot forward’, ‘never tell a lie’, ‘playing a dead bat’, and ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. Through the comparative insights of journalists who have worked as parliamentary media advisers, the practitioner reflections in this paper complicate the blunt conception of the mendacious ‘spin-doctor’ and point to the malleability of ‘truth’ in both communications roles.
Address to the Public Relations Institute of Australia, 2009
Despite being extensively researched for more than 80 years, the relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners remains obscured in ambiguity, ambivalence, and an institutionalized acrimony that belies the reality of media practices. Some journalists argue that they are not influenced by public relations while, at the same time, journalists point to the growth of public relations and empirical evidence of substantial media content influenced by PR as undesirable results of cutbacks in journalistic staff. In both cases, journalists claim that public relations is an insidious influence on public communication, referring to the practice as 'the dark side' and its practitioners as 'flacks' and 'spin doctors'. Meanwhile, the ranks of PR practitioners continue to swell, which rational analysis can only conclude is evidence that the practice is seen by others as necessary and beneficial. This paper presents three inter-connected arguments informed by analysis of existing research and new qualitative research that lead to important conclusions and recommendations in the public interest: (1) there is overwhelming evidence that public relations has a major influence on media agendas and content; (2) qualitative research rather than only quantitative data is required to understand the nature and extent of this influence; and ideologically-based hostility among journalists and stereotypes of public relations mask complicity and mutuality in the interrelationship that need to be made transparent and managed to ensure the public interest is protected and served in a dynamic and changing mediascape.
Public relations and journalism: truth, trust, transparency and integrity
2008
Truth, trust, integrity and reputation are key concepts for understanding the relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners. This the paper: first, considers the current debate on the inter-relationship between journalism and public relations; second distinguishes varieties of public relations and journalism; third, analyses the Editorial Intelligence controversy; fourth, deconstructs aspects of "truth" and "trust" in the context of that debate; fifth, considers why the virtue of individuals is vitally important for both public relations and journalism. Public Relations & Journalism: stereotypes and identity crisis In terms of public perception of both professions perhaps stereotypes of the practitioner as fundamentally dishonest are widespread. However, those stereotypes of journalism and public relations conflate the variety of activities that come under the headings "journalism" and "public relations". Public relations...
Australian Journalism Review, 2017
This paper reports on qualitative interviews with 10 Australian news editors and nine Australian politicians about the transition of press secretaries to political journalism and associated issues of partisanship and conflict of interest. Inductive analysis of the interviews revealed the importance of professionalism, reputation and perceptions of parti-sanship in employment decisions by both politicians and news editors. Politicians prioritised journalistic skill above party membership and news editors were influenced by the former press secretary's reputation as a " spear chucker " or " gun for hire ". Although the editors perceived political experience to be valuable, the majority preferred to " launder " returning journalists through a non-political reporting role before allowing them back to political news reporting, thus highlighting a tension between expectations of traditional journalistic professionalism and concerns about partisanship.
MANAGING CONFLICT OF INTEREST Shifting between political PR and journalism
When a journalist returns to political reporting after working as a political media adviser it can trigger concern about conflict of interest based on a suspicion of partisanship. Despite this, there is little discussion in the journalism literature about how reporters should manage this type of conflict when it arises. This paper reports on a selection of findings from wider inductive, qualitative research into the career transition from journalism to political media advising and back again. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted with 21 journalists who had moved between the two roles revealed that the media advisers took four main routes back to journalism in an attempt to manage the possible conflicts: “Escape”; Being “laundered”; Going “straight back in”; and “Cooling-off”. Based on these findings, this paper argues that a uniform approach to managing the transition from political advising to journalism could be useful in easing public concern about conflicts of interest.