The Good, The Bad, The Spin

[Note: This was written as a submission for another blog.]

My list of pet peeves about journalists:

1. Lack of homework, or any attempt at doing homework, about the topic at hand. This is more true for television journalists. I quite often take calls at the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources where questions asked are easily answered with readily available information on our Web site. It’s usually clear the reporter hasn’t even bothered to begin to explore the information out there and instead want it to be spoon fed to them.
2. Creating illusory correlations (as in connect-the-dots journalism) and not understanding the difference between correlation and causation. Along with this, a lack of understanding about statistics in general. Too often, reporters turn one or two anecdotal sources of information into headline stories when, in reality, the “story” is one person’s often misguided opinion.
3. Drawing inappropriate conclusions based on given information. These conclusions tend to favor the “little guy”– and/or seek to heighten controversy — and tend to smear the larger entity, usually a corporation or government agency. This happens far too frequently (witness AP’s story about “drugs in the water,” which was fear-mongering journalism at its worst).

My list of great things journalists do that make life easier:

1. Calling well ahead of deadlines for information.
2. Being human. Seriously: A dose of humor or the sharing of information about one’s self goes a long way. I spoke with a reporter recently who overheard my background music and said, “I love that band!”
3. Approaching stories fairly and without an ax to grind. When a reporter is fair in his or her approach, and it shows in the end story, I consider this to be an honorable person to work with — whether or not my organization takes a hit in the piece.

The (failed) Mojave Experiment, a screen shot

I have, mostly by default, been a Microsoft software user since 1989. Despite advances through these nearly 20 years, I’ve never quite been wowed by much of what Microsoft produces.

In contrast, Adobe’s products, particularly Photoshop and InDesign, are exceedingly useful tools with myriad creative possibilities. One can make a life time’s worth of effort simply using and learning either of these two pieces of software.

Microsoft has always been regarded as basically just being there. Needed, but not necessarily wanted or even appreciated. Microsoft’s success has been in market dominance, not necessarily superior products.

Sure Word is a fairly good package, even if it’s way too full of features 95 percent of us will never use. Excel’s not bad (but I’m still sticking with SPSS to run my stats). PowerPoint is atrocious and always has been. Its auto-functions are deplorable, counterintuitive and messy. And Internet Explorer is simply a nuisance in light of Mozilla’s Firefox browser, and now, Google’s Chrome, both of which are superior products. (more…)

Lest we forget, the ‘public’ in public relations refers to the constituents to which we are accountable.

So it irks me to hear about my colleagues who use their public relations positions to attempt to mold and control news stories to bizarre degrees. (When I was in a past position being encouraged to do the same, I couldn’t have felt more unclean.) Such attempts in fact translate as the authoritarian, “we know best” stance, which on the face of it, is just as arrogant as journalists who believe they also know what’s best for the public at large.

Consider: Both news journalists and public relations personnel constitute fairly measurable demographics. In PR, pros tend to be college-educated, (white) women of middle socioeconomic classes. News reporters tend to be college-educated white men from middle socioeconomic classes. Neither group reliably represents society as a whole yet both see fit to speak for us all. Remarkably. (more…)