There is now ample evidence supporting early claims by Toyota that, essentially, its vehicles were not at fault for a number of crashes last year. Unfortunately, the toll taken on the auto company has been significant both in terms of cost and reputation. A few have commented about the situation with marvelous insight:

• James Donnelly’s post last week questioned who benefits from the Toyota debacle. Journalists, and, likely, trial lawyers, he said.
• Newsweek’s Ed Wallace told us last week that the news media owe Toyota an apology. (Wallace was scooped in his sentiment by Michael Fumento back in March, 2010, and again in August.)
• Eric Denzenhall used Toyota to illustrate a dynamic he’s built a career upon – public attacks on corporations. (My favorite quote: “The same proliferation of media that has abetted crisis capitalists also provides an opportunity for fighting back. Just don’t expect high fives at your neighborhood barbecue for defending poor, misunderstood multinational corporations.”)
• Crisisblogger Gerald Baron used his post about Toyota’s exoneration to ask: “Would major media actually lie just to juice a story?”

The answer is, of course, yes they would. It happens all the time. In recent years misdeeds by media personnel that I’ve witnessed include the following:

1. A reporter telling my boss that I lied to my boss about something the reporter did, in fact, say.
2. A newspaper printing an expose with dozens of errors. When corrections ran, most all the corrections were also incorrect.
3. A reporter wrote in a story that I could not be reached for comment. His story was posted a mere 20 minutes after he left a message on my office phone – even though I have an outgoing message on my voicemail instructing media personnel to call my cell phone if I do not answer. (The reporter retracted the statement after I bitched him out.)
4. A publication printed an article and attributed it to a colleague who had posted the article on an online forum. He posted the column with a statement as to the column’s source, an indication that he was not in fact the column’s author. The news publication, however, took out the statement indicating the source and put his name on it instead and printed it — without permission. He demanded a retraction in the next issue, never received one nor did he receive a response to his email.
5. Another reporter belligerently yelled at a colleague and suggested we were covering up an incident he was investigating because it took multiple personnel and some time to find a 20-year-old file. His subsequent news coverage and published documentation left out important information to the story, which we in turn had to post on our own website. The news outlet then changed parts of its reporting and its online documentation, without noting the fact that they had made changes, after we outed them for their sleazy maneuvering.
6. Lastly, another local reporter claimed our agency “approved (a) dump” when the news release he received clearly stated our agency’s approval was for one of two needed permits. The reporter then told me he failed to see what he needed to correct in his statement.

Yes, Gerald, this happens all the time. My examples are only from Nevada news media, and each reporter involved is an award-winning journalist who, in most cases, has publicly advocated for honesty, transparency and has asserted the nobility of their chosen profession to some degree.

News media scumbaggery aside, though, the PR pundits have, by and large remained silent about Toyota. Last month’s issue of PRSA’s TACTICS even recited disproven claims against Toyota, also implying mismanagement and death caused by the company.

The simple reason why is that people still accept to a significant degree what news media report at face value. Despite the news media being among the least credible of sources for information, we collectively assume what we read, hear and consume to have some element of truth.

A series in 2009 – about the news media as critical components to spin and misinformation – outlined the process, both procedural and cognitive, of how and why consumers misunderstand news, as well as why media personnel frequently get things wrong.

Besides lack of editorial resources and the increasing absence of fact checking, one issue not focused upon in the series was the false sense of empowerment some reporters feel merely by being reporters. Each of those ingredients seem to be at play with Toyota news coverage. As spokespersons for “the people,” it was easy to glom onto cheap criticism, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegation. The Toyota reporting had all the makings of a good scandal for which journalists clamor. The problem was that, even early on, reporters refused to let facts get in the way of their reporting.

There is a plus side to all this. The saving grace is that the same social technologies that give rise to misinformation can also help to counter it. Now more than ever, even among my more timid PR colleagues, people and organizations are fighting back against media-enabled misinformation.

Despite the damage to Toyota’s reputation, one lesson learned is that is also pays to fight back in the face of misinformation and unjustified attacks – especially when driven by the news media.

The social nature of today’s media inherently means misinformation will potentially spread like wildfire. If based on deliberate deception, however, antagonists should heed warnings associated with the new age of transparency.

Edited 2011/02/17 for grammar and style.