The citizen and media-friendly website, Public Agenda, has handy guides for understanding surveys, polls and the nuances that go into what constitutes scientific polling. This guide for journalists has 20 questions that should be asked about surveys. Among them is this: How were (the survey participants) chosen?

Amazingly, a randomly sampled population means that only about 1,000 people can be surveyed, or polled, in order to generalize the survey’s results across “more than 210 million American adults.”

The key word is random. Not just any survey with 1,000 respondents will yield the same level of confidence in the results. This is a small but critical point the Public Relations Society of America is muddying with its presentation of the Society’s recent member survey results. (Read here and here for parts one and two in this series.)

In a recent post on the PRSAY blog, David Rockland of Ketchum, PRSA’s PR agency contracted to conduct its surveys, insists that PRSA’s survey methodology is sound. What Rockland and PRSA leaders have not presented is the importance of a random sample versus what PRSA did, which was to sample all 21,000 PRSA members.

The consequence is that the most likely survey errors experienced by PRSA are a non-response error, described as “the bias introduced when individuals invited to take the survey do not take the survey,” and self-selection bias.

 “Respondents who volunteer to participate in such surveys tend to be more extreme or otherwise very different in their views than those who do not. In no way can they be said to be representative of the population, so the survey results cannot be used to say anything useful about a target population.”

PRSA will not reveal the survey’s response rate (nor will it say how much it paid Ketchum to conduct the survey). A calculation of total membership versus those who took the survey shows a likely response rate of about 5 percent.

Rockland says the respondents were “1,126 current members, 202 lapsed members and 584 people who have never been a member. To put that into perspective, most surveys you see in the news have a sample size of 1,000 for the entire American public. Results of this study are projectable to the overall populations within the respective margins of error at the 95-percent confidence level.”

PRSA extrapolated its survey results to its entire membership, saying that “responses were weighted to the overall profile of the PRSA membership in terms of tenure in the PR industry. This is to ensure results approximate the membership as closely as possible, and is a standard practice in survey research.”

Survey experts are clear that higher response rates are only needed up to a point, if the actual people surveyed are randomly selected. PRSA put a call out to its entire membership and surveyed them online, another variant that can skew the validity of the responses. Surveying an entire population and then receiving a 5-percent response rate puts the overall responses in doubt since it is unlikely that 5 percent represents the entire PRSA membership.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research calls this SLOP (self-selected listener opinion poll) polling: “Respondents who volunteer to participate in such surveys tend to be more extreme or otherwise very different in their views than those who do not. In no way can they be said to be representative of the population, so the survey results cannot be used to say anything useful about a target population.”

Rockland disagrees: “No matter how you slice the data, or quibble with one number or another, the overall finding of ‘significant improvement over 2008 and high current levels of member engagement’ holds true.” (It should be noted that significance in research is a deliberate statistical term often confused by the lay public as meaning important. Rockland’s use of the term is unclear.)

He also says that whatever bias PRSA saw in its survey results was also in the 2008 survey results, but that the change between surveys is what’s important: “…this bias would be as much the case in the study we did in 2008 as it would this year, so in terms of looking at changes, we are fine.” In other words, survey bias is less important because PRSA only needs to see change from one survey to the next.

Most telling, however, is when Rockland says that criticism of the survey interferes with progress. He writes: “… the worst thing one can do is spend time trying to find what could be right or wrong in the data, versus taking action in continuing to move PRSA in the positive direction it is going.”

PRSA would prefer that this positive direction not be muddied by criticism. When PRSA leaders make grandiose claims about satisfaction among its members, and fail to provide supporting information used to make those pronouncements – in contradiction to its own ethics code and best practices recommendations – the Society expects its members to accept these claims without question.

The net outcome of PRSA’s survey is that there are no problems evident in the results, only a few “opportunities for improvement.”

Click image to see actual member satisfaction with PRSA.

It took a bit of haggling, but PRSA posted this week its member-satisfaction survey results for 2011. After PRSA CEO and Chair Rosanna Fiske, APR blogged about the results, an obvious question was raised by myself and Alice Irvan, APR, PRC: Where are the actual results?

We wanted to see for ourselves what the member survey results were, not PRSA’s interpretation of them. By posting about the survey results and not THE survey results, a major strategic error was in the making, one that would likely incite its regular critic(s).

While PRSA has been cagey about certain issues affecting the society, it was relatively quick to respond transparently in this case. Particularly helpful was Arthur Yann, APR, vice president of public relations for PRSA. This is important because, ironically, one of the “top learnings” presented on slide 4 of the results  PRSA posted says, “PRSA needs to continue to focus on access to information….”

I would modify this to read: “PRSA needs to continue to improve access to information….” When PRSA decided to post the survey results in a slideshow format, the take-home messages were already written into the presentation.

One needs to look closely at what the data show, however. My particular interest was chapter versus national preferences. Since chapters will soon be voting on a potential dues increase from the national level, and I know for a fact many, if not most, of my local peers find more value in local offerings than what comes out of national, it is important to know whether this is a consistent trend across the Society.

It is. Read more below.

Data indicate PRSA members have the strongest interest in local chapters, followed next by interest in national. Interest in district-level activities is relatively low. For example, slide 6 shows understanding of local chapters ranks at 80%, versus 65% for the national level. How well do members understand what districts do? Only 26%.*

This is important for discussions about dues increases. It is clear that location plays a strong role in member and non-member knowledge of PRSA.

Moreover, satisfaction with membership (slide 7) is ranked at 56% for PRSA members while lapsed members rank satisfaction at only 39%. Slide 16 breaks down these data even further. Anywhere from 40 to 62 percent of members are satisfied with membership, depending on where they are time-wise in their careers.

But those willing to recommend a local chapter? The percentage range goes up: the lowest percentage is 47% while the highest is 70%. .

Fiske writes: “PRSA members are also incredibly satisfied with the value of their PRSA membership.” Not true. The results show there is a noted difference in attitude between local and national PRSA offerings. Member satisfaction (slide 7) in general is 56% for members. Calling this “incredibly satisfied” is disingenuous.

It is also, to me, somewhat startling. I want to know why. The text above the chart on slide 7 only indicates that, “despite low incidence of satisfaction, nearly one-fifth of lapsed members are likely to renew their membership.”

Another selective interpretation. This also means that four-fifths are not likely to renew their membership. Again: Why?

More to the point, the way these results are crafted and presented is not exactly academic in nature, but rather self-affirming. The summaries of the survey results as presented show feedback on what PRSA already does, not what it could be doing. In short, the results appear to have the aim of maintaining the status quo of PRSA national.

A more important question looms:  In the face of a relatively large dues increase from the national level, why should members pay more to PRSA national when local offerings appear more relevant to their careers?

*It is important to note that because of how the results are presented, more than one interpretation can be made. (Information is missing from the slideshow. PRSA said it only posted the top findings for competitive reasons.) I post my analysis to provide a perspective I believe is lacking in PRSA’s versions of the results. What do you think? Please comment below or on my Facebook page.

Comments like these make me wonder

We hold these beliefs in part because our livelihoods depend upon delivering good publicity and buzz. Despite protests of many in the profession, me included, public relations is not publicity. The common assumption is that it is, though, and it is an assumption with cling to whether or not we outwardly agree with it.

At the end of the day, much of what we do takes the form of publicity, while less visible aspects of our jobs – strategy and planning, for example – frequently go unnoticed. They are aspects of PR that are not nearly as sexy as making our clients look good.

We are our own worst enemies in enhancing this perception. A case in point is the recent PRSA counterpoint to the article about the value of negative publicity in the New York Times. The actual research discussed in the article found that in some instances negative publicity can have a net positive effect on the bottom line, such as increased sales of products despite bad press. Michael Jackson and Seinfeld’s Michael Richards are two convincing examples.

But rather than take on peer-reviewed research, published in the September-October issue of Marketing Science, PRSA instead tossed out red herrings and protested about the NYT article merely because it didn’t like the conclusion – that negative press can actually have a positive effect in some instances.

PRSA’s Garry McCormick responds: “But whereas bad publicity can initiate or rekindle interest in a celebrity, negative publicity is potentially more harmful to a company or brand.”

Guess what? The research article in question says the exact same thing, in so many words. The first line of the article is: “Negative publicity often hurts.”

The research was further clarified:

“Using a combination of experimental methods and econometric analysis, we demonstrate that the effect of negative publicity depends on existing product awareness. Although negative publicity hurt products that already had broad awareness, it helped products that were relatively unknown…”

McCormick, in protesting the NYT article, does not argue the research results (because he can’t); rather, he is protesting what he views has “false stereotypes and myths regarding the value of public relations….” The NYT article barely mentions public relations, if at all, unless McCormick is subtly equating publicity, the topic of the article, to public relations. If so, eyebrows should raise.

He does suggest that “it’s also doubtful that many C.E.O.’s are telling their public-relations staff to help the company’s publicity effort by trashing the brand’s reputation in order to increase sales.” Again, the NYT never suggested such a thing. The protest therefore comes across as off-point and bewildering.

The Marketing Science article was a nice opportunity to advocate for peer-reviewed research in a profession emboldened by feel-good assumptions that need to be challenged; instead, PR responds with unfounded, and characteristic, protests that fail to actually tackle the matter at hand.

The Public Relations Society of America announced last week that it is increasing enforcement of its media policy for its annual conference.

The new level of enforcement potentially affects trade publications wishing to attend the conference with press credentials. In the past, trade publications were granted press access to attend the conference. This year, however, publications that had attended the conference as media in the past may have to pay full conference price.

“In the two years that I’ve been at PRSA, we’ve proactively and reactively granted International Conference press credentials to editors at the various public relations trades — and even to their publishers, as a professional courtesy,” said Arthur Yann, APR, vice president of public relations for PRSA. “Decisions on whether or not to extend press credentials will be made on a case by case basis, taking a number of factors into consideration. Those factors include our past experience with the publication and whether or not its interest in attending the current year’s conference is editorial related.”

What happened in the past, he said, is that some publications were using the press credentials to gain information for their own businesses, including networking with attendees, attending sessions for learning and gathering data on sessions – numbers of attendees for certain speakers and topics, for example – in order to create their own product offerings.

“(PRSA’s) stance is not a deviation from prior policy, but a renewed vigor in terms of enforcement,” Yann said.

Longtime PRSA critic Jack O’Dwyer has already complained about the change, saying that reporters will be forced to pay full price to attend the conference.

According to Yann, however, publications wishing media access would be considered on a case-by-case basis. He added that PRSA’s policy is consistent with other organizations and allows PRSA a degree of flexibility.

This year’s conference is October 16-19 and is being held in Washington, D.C. Writers, bloggers and reporters wishing to cover the conference may contact Diane Gomez at 212-460-1437 for information.

What do you think of PRSA’s new level of enforcement given past concerns? Your comments are welcome below.

“Let’s be blunt about the issue of accreditation. Who of us hasn’t heard colleagues be sarcastic about it? I have heard everything from tongue-in-cheek comments to direct criticism of the imprimatur. But does that sarcasm or criticism ever come from one who holds the APR designation? Never….”

– Susan Prather, APR Principal Prather PR

The problem for PRSA these days is multifaceted. As the leading public relations organization in America, the entity has been a consistent cheerleader for its accreditation process, one that helps to ensure a higher standard among those of us in the profession. Its comPRehension blog is ripe with testimonials touting the benefits of becoming accredited.

The lone voices who are critical of PRSA tend to be marginal, a symptom of the nature of an organization that values glad-handing over critical thought. More problematic is the fact that as a PR organization, PRSA frequently sets a lousy example in handling its own PR problems. When criticized, the responses have at times been bizarre, questionable and time-wasting. Usually, the organization does what too many in the profession do: ignore that a problem may exist or gloss it over.

This dynamic has been most noted in the recent controversy wherein notable PR figures began promoting a petition to remove the requirement for having the APR designation in order to participate in PRSA’s national governance opportunities. The issue went viral fairly quickly and has sparked a debate about how an organization can officially exclude the bulk of its members from governance thereby reifying its own accreditation process.

Despite what Prather, quoted above, says – maybe she hasn’t been on the Internet lately – the Society has plenty of critics, including myself, who view the APR as being over-promoted and overvalued by the Society when in fact the APR designation is typically viewed with, at best, a question as to what it is by those outside of the profession. It’s a self-serving designation.

The official response from PRSA about the petition, however, has been either one of silence or one of putting the decision for the APR requirement back on to the PRSA board, which consists primarily of APRs.

[EDIT: July 21, 2010: Based on this discussion on LinkedIn, I learned this is in fact not the case. Debra Bethard-Caplick, MBA, APR, explains: "But, Bob, the PRSA board didn't 'levy the APR requirement as a prerequisite to its own governance.' Quite the contrary. As I said in my earlier post, eliminating the APR as a requirement for board service was part of a package of bylaws changes put forth at last year's Assembly, at which I was a voting delegate. It was voted down by that Assembly, where delegates holding accreditation were in the minority, yet they voted to keep that requirement for the national executive board." I apologize for posting incorrect information. -- Bob]

[EDIT: July 27, 2010: It turns out that my original statement was probably correct. Arthur Yann, APR, writes in response to Debra's comment: "Debra -- quick point of clairfication. You're correct that a recommendation advanced last year by PRSA’s Bylaws Rewrite Task Force (with the Board's approval) would have allowed any PRSA member in good standing who is APR; and/or a Chapter, District, Section or Committee leader; and/or has more than 20 years of public relations experience with increasing levels of responsibility, to run for the Board. You're also correct that the PRSA 2009 Assembly voted down this recommendation.

"However, the number of delegates, including proxies, registered prior to the 2009 PRSA Assembly was 313; of those, 227 (72.5 percent) held the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential. So, the delegates holding accreditation were actually in the majority.

"Hope this helps to inform the discussion." The discussion may be followed here.]

Should such a group actually take the petitioners seriously it would set a precedent by devaluing its own accreditation. What is more likely to occur is that the APRs will vote to keep the APR requirement and the Society’s leaders will continue to defer to the board as being the policy makers.

Like the APR itself, this kind of governance and decision-making process serves to preserve the status quo. Nothing could be more apropos for an organization dedicated to such a lustrous profession.

—
Like this post? Buy the book. Available in paperback or as an eBook. Or download the Kindle version.

I was willing to move past the issue

PRSA’s been pushing a post on its blog called “Is Public Relations Accreditation Worthwhile?” which also has a video advocating the importance of the APR process.

Along with the video (launched June 10 on Youtube) is this statement:

“The National Capital Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America offers accreditation. For more information, please visit http://www.PRSA-NCC.org.”

In other words: It’s an indirect defense by being posted on PRSA’s blog, and it’s a soft sales pitch.

In light of criticisms, the question is how much more disingenuous can PRSA be?

In crisis communications, approaching a controversy in such a manner is called a diversionary strategy. Rather than face the issue head on, PRSA meagerly grappled with it but refused to link back the sources of criticism until criticized in the comments section of Michael Cherenson’s initial defense. Even then, rather than create a standard text hyperlink, PRSA chose to short link the articles with Bit.ly. The blogs remain unnamed.

PRSA’s handling of this situation sets a poor example for the PR profession. It’s as if the Society’s own ethical principles are selectively followed.

The free-flow of information? Not here, not now.

And to the PR folks who still read this blog: Please consider getting your APR if you haven’t already. While imperfect, it’s a valuable experience. At the same time, I think there’s something learn from PRSA’s handling of this situation.

This is not a rhetorical question: Why is it that seemingly every time the Public Relations Society of America attempts to defend itself, it ends up leaving an even worse impression of the public relations profession?

One rule of reputation or crisis management is that if you’re in a hole, you really should stop digging it deeper. PRSA doesn’t go that far, but it certainly wields a nice shovel.

I took some heat in my ever forth-coming book for this section, posted here, where I took PRSA to task for what I considered to be responding to a non-issue, doing so poorly and thereby potentially creating a larger problem. Nevertheless, I kept the section in the book (to be released this fall, thanks for asking). I’m glad I did.

I majorly respect that PRSA is taking a stand against attacks against the profession. Major kudos. It registered for me last year, and has been a constant under its current president, Michael Cherenson. He correctly makes the point that defending the profession is indeed advocating for the profession:

“Public relations professionals are obligated to strengthen the public’s trust in what we do as a profession.”

My problem is the tact the responses take. This example is basically on a good track until the end when Cherenson concludes:

“As for Mr. Brown’s use of ‘Hitler, Goebbels, and the Nazi propaganda machine’ as a metaphor for the public relations industry, I would hasten to add that Hitler was a book author, as well.”

And the point of this statement is… what, exactly? As I interpret it — hopefully incorrectly — Cherenson is saying the PR comparison to Hitler is unfair but since Hitler is a book author and the book being reviewed in the USA Today about PR is also written by a book author that perhaps Hitler and the book’s author therefore have something in common? Or maybe he means that because Hitler was a book author and so too is the author of the book about the PR industry, perhaps book writing is inherently an exercise in propaganda? Or maybe he means that anybody can be a book author? Or maybe all book authors are Nazis?

In any case, the statement is ill-considered.

Cherenson chimes in again recently, this time in a blog post about the APR process and an unnamed

“head of a well-respected New York firm (that) delivered a blistering critique of the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential on his blog. Somewhat curiously, a similar outburst appeared on his partner’s blog a day later.”

What’s curious is that PRSA sent official notice to its members last year saying that it would no longer interact with this individual, presumably one Jack O’Dwyer, a long-term thorn in the side of PRSA, who PRSA claims is bullying and harassing toward members.

Cherenson’s response is strange and strays again into non-issues. The topic at hand is the APR process, accrediting public relations professionals as a mark of continued education and dedication to ethical practice. The title of Cherenson’s post: “APR Critics: Down With Education!”

I can’t find a single instance – in O’Dwyer’s post or in this post – where people have discouraged further education. O’Dwyer criticizes the APR process, contrasts it with the Canadian APR process, which is called “far superior” and points out inconsistencies in the APR process.

To be fair, O’Dwyer comes off as wild-eyed and conspiracy-oriented at times (he claims “APR is a political party,” a major WTF?), and if what PRSA says about his behavior is true, bullying should not be tolerated.

The problem is when he makes an important claim or criticism and PRSA tosses out red herrings in defense, such as:

“We find it fascinating that the heads of a single big-city agency presume that their views are somehow defining for others.”

(Again) WTF?

Granted, Cherenson acknowledges problems in the profession but mocks critics and defends the profession with non-related points, such as:

“Thousands of APRs across America proudly display the APR mark — as they do their other qualifications — because it is one of their many accomplishments.”

This is self-serving hyperbole that is unrelated to the levied criticisms.

For the record, I had no formal training in PR when I received my APR. The APR process was important to me but not because I could add three more initials behind my name. The multiple choice test is of dubious validity, but the direct feedback from colleagues and other professionals when I presented by portfolio was immensely valuable. I recommend PR folks go through the APR process if for no other reason than to hone their skills, re-think what it is they are doing (and why) and gain important feedback.

That doesn’t inherently mean that APRs are somehow more accomplished, smarter, more ethical or better PR people. As the APR discussion was fleshed on Twitter yesterday, I received this response. The individual claims that PR is but a “biz strategy.” She’s an APR.

The point in all of this is that PRSA comes across as ill-equipped to handle its own reputation management. Rule number one in crisis management is that if you have done wrong, admit it, vow to improve and communicate that to affected publics. While what PRSA has done and is doing isn’t exactly wrong, it clearly violates many of the basic tenets of the profession, which O’Dwyer regularly likes to point out, such as being transparent and engaging in two-way communication.

Is PRSA improving? Undoubtedly, yes (check out PRSAY, as one example). At the same time, PRSA should also begin looking within and holding the profession and its professionals accountable for misdeeds too numerous to mention. Admitting that misdeeds occur in the first place might be a good place to start. Going off topic in defense just gives the offense more ammunition and fails to address the myriad problems that brought rise to the debate in the first place.

EDIT 08-03-09: I received information that PRSA’s Cherenson was actually referring in his post to Steve Cody of the agency Peppercorn, who originally posted about the APR topic. A subsequent post alluded to as “curious” by Cherenson was posted on the same blog by Ed Moed. I regret the assumption that PRSA’s Cherenson was referring to Jack O’Dwyer (who also had something to say on the matter recently); although, to be fair, in addition to PRSA’s struggle in responding appropriately to efforts in becoming transparent, we can also add into the mix the difficulty with something as simple as link-backs.

I don’t know Sarah Soczka, but if I ever meet her, I’m going to buy her a beer. Sarah is the unwitting victim of the “watch what you say online” crowd, specifically one Jeff Bentoff, APR, of Bentoff, LLC from Wisconsin. Bentoff writes in the June issue of the Public Relations Society of America’s TACTICS newsletter about “A cautionary Twitter tale: Young professional learns a tweet lesson.”

Bentoff details the story of how Soczka wrote a brief and, in my opinion, relatively milquetoast blog post on her own blog, and presumably on her own time, about why Newshub (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) is better than BizJournalMke (Milwaukee Business Journal). She was clear to say the post and her blog and Twitter account represent her own views.

Nevertheless, Bentoff writes:

“Her blog posting might have gone unnoticed, but bringing attention to it via Twitter was like throwing birdseed into a bird’s nest.

“Only 10 minutes after Soczka posted to her Twitter account, the Journal Sentinel’s main Twitter writer retweeted the item and headline to its many followers.”

Bentoff admits that Soczka was correct in her post, and he makes efforts to praise her as “a social media natural” … “who is fluent and comfortable with the tools.” His tone ends up as chastising, however, and what he does to Soczka next is a classic case of shooting the messenger.

He recounts:

“The twittering crescendo quickly reached the ears of Mark Kass, the Milwaukee Business Journal’s editor. Kass said that his first reaction was, ‘Who is she, and why did she do this?’ He added that he agreed with the points that she made on her blog, but was disappointed that she hadn’t contacted him before posting. Kass said that had she done so, he would have explained that his paper had started tweeting two weeks before and had already made plans for reporter tweets in the style Soczka advocated for.”

Kass’ initial, ad hominem reaction of “Who is she?” is alarming coming from someone in the news business. The news media regularly defends itself as reporters of information against those who blame journalists for the impact of putting out the news and commentary. That’s what basically what Soczka was doing: commenting on the use of social media by newbs, ineffective use of social media being so omnipresent that it’s a wonder Soczka wasn’t harsher. For Kass’ first response to be of the shoot-the-messenger variety puts his own credibility in question.

Next, there is no reason whatsoever that Soczka should have contacted the Milwaukee Business Journal prior to posting. Commentary legitimately does not require letting parties have a “fair” say prior to publication. The news media certainly wouldn’t do this; why should a blogger? Kass’ response is more about his own ego than about anything Soczka wrote.

What happens next is even more telling. Back to Bentoff:

“Kass said that he didn’t think Soczka was fair with her comments in comparing a new Twitter feed with a mature one. After hearing about the tweets, Kass also contacted Soczka’s supervisor and the three of them met so that he could explain the Business Journal’s plans to her.”

Let’s get this straight. Kass expects to be notified before anyone writes something potentially negative about his use of Twitter but then goes to the messenger’s supervisor, who has nothing to do with this issue, so he can “explain” his social media plan?

There is only one reason that Kass approached Soczka’s supervisor and that was to put her on notice. It was a veiled threat and a way for him to put the practitioner in her proper place with a subtext that says, “How dare you criticize me.”

Put another way: Reporters frequently don’t extend polite courtesies to PR people (I have vivid memories of being verbally bullied by a belligerent, screaming reporter leveling all sorts of his personal allegations at me on one occasion, along with a number of other examples), and its erroneous to assume that kissing reporters’ asses will get you very far. Prompt, polite responses, useful information, access to the right sources, yes. Gratuitous niceties, no.

Lest we forget: Journalists in general consider PR people a necessary evil. Anyone who has been in the business awhile, especially in public sector communications, knows it’s not uncommon for an “official” perspective to be looked upon with far more scrutiny than, say, that of an accuser, protester or any other kind of agitator. This all in fairness, of course.

This situation raises another critical point that gets little attention; the change in culture as a consequence of social media. Social media reduces the need for a middleman and conversations are open to the world. While this means caution should be exercised, it also means there is an emerging acceptance and acknowledgement of online behavior previously viewed as taboo, behaviors that arise because of the nature of who we are as humans and because this is how we now communicate.

In addition, the public relations profession mandates the free flow of information. Nowhere to date but in social media can this happen so effectively. The free flow of information also means not all information is first created equal and, second, will be interpreted the same way among publics. Because of this, along with the reality that PR people are blogging all over the place, we finally get to voice our concerns, perspectives and opinions. This is something to be celebrated, especially in an industry that prior to new media had far less of a voice. Bloggers are supposed to be provocative; PR people should weigh in on the effective use of media, even if they are critical. We’ve tolerated enough of the cheeky, third-grade level pedantic commentary from our local media sources. It’s time we had our say.

On the flipside, there’s plenty of room for outlining consequences and, most importantly, developing skills for handling inevitable crises and controversies. The problem isn’t that controversies arise; the problem is how they are frequently mishandled. Sure, PR people should be vigilant about what they say online and elsewhere, but it’s a basic error to attempt to enforce a bogus professional morality in professions – news reporting, PR – that inherently don’t play by the same rules and do not extend mutually equitable courtesies.

Sarah Soczka: You deserve a raise. The main thing you need to be vigilant about is which of the anachronistic views that come your way are actually worth a listen. Keep blazing trails, my friend.

POSTSCRIPT

Just before hitting publish, I went to the Milwaukee Business Journal’s Twitter account. True to Soczka’s original criticism posted in February, the Business Journal’s Twitter follows nobody and merely posts news back to its own site. It has 671 followers. If Kass agreed with Soczka’s point, as he claimed, it might behoove him to do something about it, like he said he was going to. I’m now even more baffled as to why Bentoff wrote this “cautionary tale” in the first place when Kass and the Business Journal, especially in contrast with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Twitter, are enacting what we involved with social media refer to as an “epic fail.”

[EDIT 1:41 p.m.: I was just informed that the Business Journal has a number of reporters who Twitter, including the editor, Mark Kass. Please consider this in the context of the above statement. I apologize for jumping the gun about the Journal's social media use without checking it out first. -Bob.]

This Bike is a Pipe Bomb photo by Jeff Moser / Bike Carson on Flickr

Public relations’ Code of Ethics serves as a viable reminder for being honest not just in your professional life, but for life in general. Honesty, the free flow of information and accuracy serve as valuable credos for personal and businesses relationships.

Nothing exemplifies this more than the ongoing hubbub about appropriating content from other sources. Taking content from someone else for your blog, or other use, and not crediting the original source is a clear violation of PRSA’s Code of Ethics, yet far too many people do it.

Me included. Looking back on past posts, I have strived to cite sources as much as possible, but when it comes to mainstream news outlets, I have played loose with the ethics, mainly in using photos from the Associated Press or other global news outlets for my own posts.

While it can be argued that such use falls under the Fair Use doctrine – which is a considerable point, as Rogers Cadenhead knows too well from his noted controversy with the Associated Press – using such content without crediting the original source is clearly wrong.

I’ve fucked up. More than once. I know better too but I’ve been careless. From here on out, if I cannot find a suitable image to use for my posts, I will credit the original source if I use an image from elsewhere. If a concern is raised about even using the image, I will remove it. (Most, I’ve learned, are more than happy to see their content referenced, cited and even republished, which is a part of what being networked is all about.)

Another element to misappropriating content is taking it, using it without attribution and then claiming it as your own. This is what FOX News has done to Carson City, Nevada blogger Jeff Moser, which he just discovered.

Jeff writes about the bike culture in Nevada’s capital, Carson City. Jeff is a long time friend and he, to me, exemplifies citizen journalism or niche blogging. More importantly, he uses his blog not only to convey relevant and up-to-date information, but to connect with real people in real life and, in general, to improve the quality of life in Carson City.

One day Jeff noticed a bike parked at a coffee shop with a sticker that read, “this bike is a pipe bomb.” The sticker is actually the name of a punk band that apparently is put on bikes all over. Jeff took a picture of the bike and posted it on Flickr where it’s licensed under Creative Commons, which means anyone can use it but they must give credit to the original source.

Months later Jeff did a search for the image, and what he discovered resulted in a new blog post: FOX News used the image for a news story without given credit to Jeff. It also later claimed the image as its own by watermarking the image with its own logo.

While bloggers must keep out own ethics and houses in order, so too must the news media.

I am not hopeful for any kind of public outcome for Jeff, other than some snarky comments on his blog and a little bit of online hype. The reason is this: While PR folks – and really, people in general — should be prepared apologize, or acknowledge wrongdoing, the news media business must also do the same. The problem is that too often, it doesn’t.

The same day Jeff posted his “No Spin Zone” story, a local columnist posted this, where he details news business advice he once received: “Never explain, never apologize.” (The columnist, to his credit, selectively ignores the advice.)

Let us hope that as news businesses are forced into radically transforming their operations, part of what is left behind is the “never explain, never apologize” attitude.

[NOTE: I emailed the myFOX Mephis reporter who originally reported the story using Jeff's image and requested comments and aswers to questions. I will update this post with her reply should it be received.]

I used to have a negative reaction when I heard or read about news journalists harping on why journalism schools should get rid of public relations emphases.

I couldn’t quite figure out why until recently. At first, I vehemently disagreed with the notion, usually adopting the knee-jerk attitude of painting these journalists as arrogant and holier-than-thou, which, frankly, is what this view is borne from – the oft exhibited air of superiority of their profession, an attitude news journalists have in common with PR folk.

But I’ve come to agree with the prospect of public relations becoming less journalism oriented and more business focused.

Here’s why:

1. Public relations is inherently a business function in most organizations, usually broadly defined as a communications role of some sort, often comingled with, under or above marketing functions. Moreover, if the PR person is “at the table,” it can effectively be argued that PR is indeed a management function. This alone has little or nothing to do with news journalism.

2. Journalism skills needed by public relations students can be obtained usually with about a year and half’s worth of journalism courses – with one major exception, the constant need to improve writing skills, something business students sorely lack – news writing, editing, reporting and so on. In other words, these courses can be taken regardless of whether the PR sequence resides within a journalism or business college.

3. PR skills combine good writing with good business practices, such as setting goals, writing plans and engaging with audiences. News reporters are often antagonistic toward what are really the newsroom profit margins – the sales, marketing, advertising and other business functions.

4. Public relations as a symmetrical communications function is hand-in-glove suited for the evolution of online, social media. News reporting, on the other hand, is too often asymmetrical in nature, with reporters not being trained, nor encouraged, to engage in two-way dialogue.

5. Public relations professionals are (slowly, at times) embracing and celebrating new media. The latest issues of the PRSA newsletter were ripe with social media articles and Twitter was a front page feature.

6. The news journalism paradigm, meanwhile, is suffering under the onslaught of the increased democratization of communication by the masses – Craigslist, which has single-handedly decimated newspaper classified advertising, is a favorite example – as we witness news institutions going bankrupt, suffering mass layoffs and being forced to be online-only. Some other examples of this: A reporter once complained to me about being trained in the newsroom on how to podcast. “I don’t want to podcast,” he said in disgust. And: Amazingly, my alma mater still has a “print journalism” sequence, from which I graduated in 1995 when online conservations were already a norm. The school was still doing wax paste-ups when I was there too. I had to ask special permission to do my page layouts in Pagemaker and on computer. And one professor was still referring to computer monitors as cathode ray tubes.

7. Public relations hiccups at considering bloggers and self-anointed journalists as valid outlets, but PR pros are getting it and rather quickly – or they are facing public ridicule when they do not.

8. Journalists, on the other hand, are still figuring out where they fit into the scenario [Edit 12/30/08: here's a good example] and some continue to be hostile to bloggers, seeing them as competition and refusing to link to their content when it is the bloggers, unencumbered by news-room structures and pressures, who are breaking stories left and right and thereby driving the temper of news today.

9. Good public relations does not value media placement as much as it used to. We are instead relying more on our own blogs and a mix of other outlets to target our core audiences.

10. Finally, and most importantly, the reason for moving PR out of journalism and into business schools is that it serves as an important career lesson for news reporting students. Consider it: If, say, advertising and PR sequences constitute 50 percent of all journalism students, and these students were to be moved into a business school, the associated resources would fairly go with them. These would include the full time faculty, the part time faculty, the endowments designated for PR and advertising and an equitable share of non-designated endowments and other resources, such as computers, professional journals and so on.

Journalism schools would become shells of their former selves, just as newsrooms are today. The real-world lesson would therefore be priceless for those seeking news reporting degrees and careers.

A new era is waiting. Let’s begin.