An epistemological issue concerns the question of what is (or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline. A particularly central issue in this context is the question of whether the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles, procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences. The position that affi rms the importance of imitating the natural sciences is invariably associated with an epistemological position known as positivism (see Key concept 2.2).

A natural science epistemology: positivism The doctrine of positivism is extremely diffi cult to pin down and therefore to outline in a precise manner, because it is used in a number of different ways by authors. For some writers, it is a descriptive category—one that describes a philosophical position that can be discerned in research—though there are still disagreements about what it comprises; for others, it is a pejorative term used to describe crude and often superfi cial data collection. It is possible to see in the fi ve principles in Key concept 2.2 a link with some of the points that have already been raised about the relationship between theory and research. For example, positivism entails elements of both a deductive approach (principle 2) and an inductive strategy (principle 3). Also, a fairly sharp distinction is drawn between theory and research. The role of research is to test theories and to provide material for the development of laws. But either of these connections between theory and research carries with it the implication that it is possible to collect observations in a manner that is not infl uenced by pre-existing theories. Moreover, theoretical terms that are not directly amenable to observation are not considered genuinely scientifi c; they must be susceptible to the rigours of observation. All this carries with it the implication of greater epistemological status being given to observation than to theory. It should be noted that it is a mistake to treat positivism as synonymous with science and the scientifi c. In fact, philosophers of science and of the social sciences differ quite sharply over how best to characterize scientifi c practice, and since the early 1960s there has been a drift away from viewing it in positivist terms. Thus, when writers complain about the limitations of positivism, it is not entirely clear whether they mean the philosophical term or a scientifi c approach more generally. Realism (in particular, critical realism), for example, is another philosophical position that purports to provide an account of the nature of scientifi c practice (see Key concept 2.3). The crux of the epistemological considerations that form the central thrust of this section is the rejection by some writers and traditions of the application of the canons of the natural sciences to the study of social reality. A diffi culty here is that it is not easy to disentangle the natural science model from positivism as the butt of their criticisms. In other words, it is not always clear whether they are inveighing against the application of a general natural scientifi c approach or of positivism in particular. There is a long-standing debate about the appropriateness of the natural science model for the study of society, but, since the account that is offered of that model tends to have largely positivist overtones, it would seem that it is positivism that is the focus of attention rather than other accounts of scientifi c practice (such as critical realism—see Key concept 2.3).

Interpretivism Interpretivism is a term given to a contrasting epistemology to positivism (see Key concept 2.4). The term subsumes the views of writers who have been critical of the application of the scientifi c model to the study of the social world and who have been infl uenced by different intellectual traditions, which are outlined below. They share a view that the subject matter of the social sciences —people and their institutions—is fundamentally different from that of the natural sciences. The study of the social world therefore requires a different logic of research procedure, one that refl ects the distinctiveness of humans as against the natural order. Von Wright (1971) has depicted the epistemological clash as being between positivism and hermeneutics (a term that is drawn from theology and that, when imported into the social sciences, is concerned with the theory and method of the interpretation of human action). This clash refl ects a division between an emphasis on the explanation of human behaviour that is the chief ingredient of the positivist approach to the social sciences and the understanding of human behaviour. The latter is concerned with the empathic understanding of human action rather than with the forces that are deemed to act on it. This contrast refl ects long-standing debates that precede the emergence of the modern social sciences but fi nd their expression in such notions as the advocacy by Max Weber (1864–1920) of an approach referred to in his native German as Verstehen (which means understanding). Weber (1947: 88) described sociology as a ‘science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects’. Weber’s defi nition seems to embrace both explanation and understanding here, but the crucial point is that the task of ‘causal explanation’ is undertaken with reference to the ‘interpretive understanding of social action’ rather than to external forces that have no meaning for those involved in that social action. One of the main intellectual traditions that has been responsible for the anti-positivist position has been phenomenology, a philosophy that is concerned with the question of how individuals make sense of the world around them and how in particular the philosopher should bracket out preconceptions in his or her grasp of that world. The initial application of phenomenological ideas to the social sciences is attributed to the work of Alfred Schutz (1899–1959), whose work did not come to the notice of most English-speaking social scientists until the translation from German of his major writings in the 1960s, some twenty or more years after they had been written. His work was profoundly infl uenced by Weber’s concept of Verstehen, as well as by phenomenological philosophers, like Husserl. Schutz’s position is well captured in the following passage, which has been quoted on numerous occasions: Two points are particularly noteworthy in this quotation. First, it asserts that there is a fundamental difference between the subject matter of the natural sciences and the social sciences and that an epistemology is required that will refl ect and capitalize upon that difference. The fundamental difference resides in the fact that social reality has a meaning for human beings and therefore human action is meaningful—that is, it has a meaning for them and they act on the basis of the meanings that they attribute to their acts and to the acts of others. This leads to the second point—namely, that it is the job of the social scientist to gain access to people’s ‘common-sense thinking’ and hence to interpret their actions and their social world from their point of view. It is this particular feature that social scientists claiming allegiance to phenomenology have typically emphasized. In the words of the authors of a research methods text whose approach is described as phenomenological: ‘The phenomenologist views human behavior . . . as a product of how people interpret the world. . . . In order to grasp the meanings of a person’s behavior, the phenomenologist attempts to see things from that person’s point of view’ (Bogdan and Taylor 1975: 13–14; emphasis in original). In this exposition of Verstehen and phenomenology, it has been necessary to skate over some complex issues. In particular, Weber’s examination of Verstehen is far more complex than the above commentary suggests, because the empathetic understanding that seems to be implied above was not the way in which he applied it (Bauman 1978), while the question of what is and is not a genuinely phenomenological approach to the social sciences is a matter of some dispute (Heap and Roth 1973). However, the similarity in the writings of the hermeneutic– phenomenological tradition and of the Verstehen approach, with their emphasis upon social action as being meaningful to actors and therefore needing to be interpreted from their point of view, coupled with the rejection of positivism, contributed to a stream of thought often referred to as interpretivism (e.g. J. A. Hughes 1990).

Verstehen and the hermeneutic–phenomenological tradition do not exhaust the intellectual infl uences on interpretivism. The theoretical tradition in sociology known as symbolic interactionism has also been regarded by many writers as a further infl uence. Again, the case is not clear-cut. The implications for empirical research of the ideas of the founders of symbolic interactionism, in particular George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), whose discussion of the way in which our notion of self emerges through an appreciation of how others see us, have been hotly debated. There was a school of research, known as the Iowa school, that drew heavily on Mead’s concepts and ideas, but proceeded in a direction that most people would prefer to depict as largely positivist in tone (Meltzer et al. 1975). Moreover, some writers have argued that Mead’s approach is far more consistent with a natural science approach than has typically been recognized (McPhail and Rexroat 1979). However, the general tendency has been to view symbolic interactionism as occupying similar intellectual space to the hermeneutic–phenomenological tradition and so as broadly interpretative in approach. This tendency is largely the product of the writings of Herbert Blumer, a student of Mead’s who acted as his mentor’s spokesman and interpreter, and his followers (Hammersley 1989; R. Collins 1994). Not only did Blumer coin the term symbolic interaction; he also provided a gloss on Mead’s writings that has decidedly interpretative overtones. Symbolic interactionists argue that interaction takes place in such a way that the individual is continually interpreting the symbolic meaning of his or her environment (which includes the actions of others) and acts on the basis of this imputed meaning. In research terms, according to Blumer (1962: 188), ‘the position of symbolic interaction requires the student to catch the process of interpretation through which [actors] construct their actions’, a statement that brings out clearly his views of the research implications of symbolic interactionism and of Mead’s thought. It should be appreciated that the parallelism between symbolic interactionism and the hermeneutic– phenomenological tradition should not be exaggerated. The two are united in their antipathy for positivism and have in common an interpretative stance. However, symbolic interactionism is, at least in the hands of Blumer and the many writers and researchers who have followed in his wake, a type of social theory that has distinctive epistemological implications; the hermeneutic– phenomenological tradition, by contrast, is best thought of as a general epistemological approach in its own right. Blumer may have been infl uenced by the hermeneutic– phenomenological tradition, but there is no concrete evidence of this. There are other intellectual currents that have affi nities with the interpretative stance, such as the working-through of the ramifi cations of the works of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (Winch 1958), but the hermeneutic–phenomenological, Verstehen, and symbolic interactionist traditions can be considered major infl uences. Taking an interpretative stance can mean that the researcher may come up with surprising fi ndings, or at least fi ndings that appear surprising if a largely external stance is taken—that is, a position from outside the particular social context being studied. Research in focus 2.6 provides an interesting example of this possibility. Of course, as the example in Research in focus 2.6 suggests, when the social scientist adopts an interpretative stance, he or she is not simply laying bare how members of a social group interpret the world around them. The social scientist will almost certainly be aiming to place the interpretations that have been elicited into a social scientifi c frame. There is a double interpretation going on: the researcher is providing an interpretation of others’ interpretations. Indeed, there is a third level of interpretation going on, because the researcher’s interpretations have to be further interpreted in terms of the concepts, theories, and literature of a discipline. Thus, taking the example in Research in focus 2.6, Foster’s (1995) suggestion that Riverside is not perceived as a high crime area by residents is her interpretation of her subjects’ interpretations. She then had the additional job of placing her interesting fi ndings into a social scientifi c frame, which she accomplished by relating them to existing concepts and discussions in criminology of such things as informal social control, neighbourhood watch schemes, and the role of housing as a possible cause of criminal activity. The aim of this section has been to outline how epistemological considerations—especially those relating to the question of whether a natural science approach, and in particular a positivist one, can supply legitimate knowledge of the social world—are related to research practice. There is a link with the earlier section in that a deductive approach to the relationship between theory and research is typically associated with a positivist position. Key concept 2.2 does try to suggest that inductivism is also a feature of positivism (third principle), but, in the working-through of its implementation in the practice of social research, it is the deductive element (second principle) that tends to be emphasized. Similarly, the third level of interpretation that a researcher engaged in interpretative research must bring into operation is very much part of the kind of inductive strategy described in the previous section. However, while such interconnections between epistemological issues and research practice exist, it is important not to overstate them, since they represent tendencies rather than defi nitive points of correspondence. Thus, particular epistemological principles and research practices do not necessarily go hand in hand in a neat unambiguous manner. This point will be made again on several occasions and will be a special focus of Chapter 26.

Ontological Consideration

Questions of social ontology are concerned with the nature of social entities. The central point of orientation here is the question of whether social entities can and should be considered objective entities that have a reality external to social actors, or whether they can and should be considered social constructions built up from the perceptions and actions of social actors. These positions are frequently referred to respectively as objectivism and constructionism. Their differences can be illustrated by reference to two of the most common and central terms in social science—organization and culture. Objectivism Objectivism is an ontological position that implies that social phenomena confront us as external facts that are beyond our reach or infl uence (see Key concept 2.5). We can discuss organization or an organization as a tangible object. It has rules and regulations. It adopts standardized procedures for getting things done. People are appointed to different jobs within a division of labour. There is a hierarchy. It has a mission statement. And so on. The degree to which these features exist from organization to organization is variable, but in thinking in these terms we are tending to the view that an organization has a reality that is external to the individuals who inhabit it. Moreover, the organization represents a social order in that it exerts pressure on individuals to conform to the requirements of the organization. People learn and apply the rules and regulations. They follow the standardized procedures. They do the jobs to which they are appointed. People tell them what to do and they tell others what to do. They learn and apply the values in the mission statement. If they do not do these things, they may be reprimanded or even fi red. The organization is therefore a constraining force that acts on and inhibits its members. The same can be said of culture. Cultures and subcultures can be viewed as repositories of widely shared values and customs into which people are socialized so that they can function as good citizens or as full participants. Cultures and subcultures constrain us because we internalize their beliefs and values. In the case of both organization and culture, the social entity in question comes across as something external to the actor and as having an almost tangible reality of its own. It has the characteristics of an object and hence of having an objective reality. To a very large extent, these are the ‘classic’ ways of conceptualizing organization and culture. Constructionism However, we can consider an alternative ontological position—constructionism (Key concept 2.6). This position challenges the suggestion that categories such as organization and culture are pre-given and therefore confront social actors as external realities that they have no role in fashioning. Let us take organization fi rst. Strauss et al. (1973), drawing on insights from symbolic interactionism, carried out research in a psychiatric hospital and proposed that it was best conceptualized as a ‘negotiated order’. Instead of taking the view that order in organizations is a pre-existing characteristic, they argue that it is worked at. Rules were far less extensive and less rigorously imposed than might be supposed from the classic account of organization. Indeed, Strauss et al. (1973: 308) prefer to refer to them as ‘much less like commands, and much more like general understandings’. Precisely because relatively little of the spheres of action of doctors, nurses, and other personnel was prescribed, the social order of the hospital was an outcome of agreed-upon patterns of action that were themselves the products of negotiations between the different parties involved. The social order is in a constant state of change because the hospital is ‘a place where numerous agreements are continually being terminated or forgotten, but also as continually being established, renewed, reviewed, revoked, revised. . . . In any pragmatic sense, this is the hospital at the moment: this is its social order’ (Strauss et al. 1973: 316–17). The authors argue that a preoccupation with the formal properties of organizations (rules, organizational charts, regulations, roles) tends to neglect the degree to which order in organizations has to be accomplished in everyday interaction, though this is not to say that the formal properties have no element of constraint on individual action. Much the same kind of point can be made about the idea of culture. Instead of seeing culture as an external reality that acts on and constrains people, it can be taken to be an emergent reality in a continuous state of construction and reconstruction. Becker (1982: 521), for example, has suggested that ‘people create culture continuously. . . . No set of cultural understandings . . . provides a perfectly applicable solution to any problem people have to solve in the course of their day, and they therefore must remake those solutions, adapt their understandings to the new situation in the light of what is different about it.’ Like Strauss et al., Becker recognizes that the constructionist position cannot be pushed to the extreme: it is necessary to appreciate that culture has a reality that ‘persists and antedates the participation of particular people’ and shapes their perspectives, but it is not an inert objective reality that possesses only a sense of constraint: it acts as a point of reference but is always in the process of being formed. Neither the work of Strauss et al. nor that of Becker pushes the constructionist argument to the extreme. Each admits to the pre-existence of their objects of interest (organization and culture respectively). However, in each case we see an intellectual predilection for stressing the active role of individuals in the social construction of social reality. Not all writers adopting a constructionist position are similarly prepared to acknowledge the existence or at least importance of an objective reality. Walsh (1972: 19), for example, has written that ‘we cannot take for granted, as the natural scientist does, the availability of a preconstituted world of phenomena for investigation’ and must instead ‘examine the processes by which the social world is constructed’. Constructionism essentially invites the researcher to consider the ways in which social reality is an ongoing accomplishment of social actors rather than something external to them and that totally constrains them. Constructionism also suggests that the categories that people employ in helping them to understand the natural and social world are in fact social products. The categories do not have built-in essences; instead, their meaning is constructed in and through interaction. Thus, a category like ‘masculinity’ might be treated as a social construction. This notion implies that, rather than being treated as a distinct inert entity, masculinity is construed as something whose meaning is built up during interaction. That meaning is likely to be a highly ephemeral one, in that it will vary by both time and place. This kind of stance frequently displays a concern with the language that is employed to present categories in particular ways. It suggests that the social world and its categories are not external to us, but are built up and constituted in and through interaction. This tendency can be seen particularly in discourse analysis, which is examined in Chapter 22. As Potter (1996: 98) observes: ‘The world . . . is constituted in one way or another as people talk it, write it and argue it.’ This sense of constructionism is highly antithetical to realism (see Key concept 2.3). Constructionism frequently results in an interest in the representation of social phenomena. Research in focus 2.7 provides an illustration of this idea in relation to the representation of the breast cancer epidemic in the USA. Constructionism is also frequently used as a term that refl ects the indeterminacy of our knowledge of the social world (see Key concept 2.6 and the idea of constructionism in relation to the nature of knowledge of the social world). However, in this book, I will be using the term in connection with the notion that social phenomena and categories are social constructions. Relationship to social research Questions of social ontology cannot be divorced from issues concerning the conduct of social research. Ontological assumptions and commitments will feed into the ways in which research questions are formulated and research is carried out. If a research question is formulated in such a way as to suggest that organizations and cultures are objective social entities that act on individuals, the researcher is likely to emphasize the formal properties of organizations or the beliefs and values of members of the culture. Alternatively, if the researcher formulates a research question so that the tenuousness of organization and culture as objective categories is stressed, it is likely that an emphasis will be placed on the active involvement of people in reality construction. In either case, it might be supposed that different approaches to the design of research and the collection of data will be required. Later in the book, Research in focus 20.8 provides an illustration of a study with a strong commitment to a constructionist ontology and its implications for the research process.

Research Strategy: Quantitative and qualitative reasearch

Many writers on methodological issues fi nd it helpful to distinguish between quantitative research and qualitative research. The status of the distinction is ambiguous, because it is almost simultaneously regarded by some writers as a fundamental contrast and by others as no longer useful or even simply as ‘false’ (Layder 1993: 110). However, there is little evidence to suggest that the use of the distinction is abating and even considerable evidence of its continued, even growing, currency. The quantitative/qualitative distinction will be employed a great deal in this book, because it represents a useful means of classifying different methods of social research and because it is a helpful umbrella for a range of issues concerned with the practice of social research. On the face of it, there would seem to be little to the quantitative/qualitative distinction other than the fact that quantitative researchers employ measurement and qualitative researchers do not. It is certainly the case that there is a predisposition among researchers along these lines, but many writers have suggested that the differences are deeper than the superfi cial issue of the presence or absence of quantifi cation. For many writers, quantitative and qualitative research differ with respect to their epistemological foundations and in other respects too. Indeed, if we take the areas that have been the focus of the previous three sections—the connection between theory and research, epistemological considerations, and ontological considerations—quantitative and qualitative research can be taken to form two distinctive clusters of research strategy. By a research strategy, I simply mean a general orientation to the conduct of social research. Table 2.1 outlines the differences between quantitative and qualitative research in terms of the three areas. Thus, quantitative research can be construed as a research strategy that emphasizes quantifi cation in the collection and analysis of data and that

 lima tahun yang akan datang, saya ingin mendapatkan gelar sarjana master di universitas gadjah mada. Saya ingin mempelajarii ilmu pariwisata di kampus tersebut. Saya ingin pergi ke berbagai negara dengan bekal ilmu tersebut sebagai hobi saya suatu saat nanti. Saya juga sangat ingin sekali kuliah di luar negeri salah satu universitas di Australia. University of Sydney menjadi impian saya selama ini. Saya akan menjadi entrepreneur dan menjalankan bisnis indekos sebagai sampingan. Saya akan berkeliling berbagai negara jika diberikan rezeki dan umur panjang. 

Dari lahir saya tinggal di sebuah kota besar yaitu Jakarta. Hiruk pikuk Jakarta yang penuh lika-liku. Bermacam-macam orang yang tinggal di kota ini. Hidup di kota besar memiliki keuntungan dan kerugian yang bisa saya rasakan. Terdapat keuntungan yang pertama yaitu, strategis. Sejauh perhatian saya, masyarakat di kota ini banyak masyarakat yang hidup dengan kemewahan karena semua tersedia di kota ini. Seperti mall, supermarket, dan tempat-tempat ramai dan strategis lainnya yang membuat mereka terlihat hidup mewah.

Kedua, jika kalian memiliki permasalahan kesehatan kalian akan mudah untuk menemukan berbagai rumah sakit mulai dari kualitas standar dan yang bagus kalian dapat temukan di kota ini. Menurut sudut pandang saya, hal ini memberikan keuntungan lebih bagi saya sendiri jika saya bandingkan dengan di desa orang tua saya. Pelayanan dan peralatan di rumah sakit besar juga lumayan baik dan lengkap.

Ketiga, kemudahan untuk mencari pekerjaan. Berhubung ini kota besar banyak gedung-gedung bertingkat, perusahaan, dan kantor-kantor yang dibangun di Jakarta jadi banyak dari mereka yang menyediakan lowongan pekerjaan. Sejujurnya saya berpikir bahwa hal ini justru makin mempersempit lowongan pekerjaan, karena anggapan kota besar tersebut banyak orang yang merantau saking banyaknya persaingan pun semakin luas dan kesempatan untuk mendapat pekerjaan semakin kecil.

Keempat, fasilitas umum yang memadai. Secara pribadi, saya sudah banyak merasakan fasilitas umum yang lengkap di Jakarta seperti KRL, MRT, halte busway yang bagus, rasanya seperti tinggal di luar negeri, apalagi trotoar dan fasilitas lainnya yang semakin bagus membuat betah dan nyaman.

Kelima, fashion yang paling update. Saya berasumsi bahwa Jakarta merupakan tempat fashion yang paling update. Dimana kita bisa melihat orang-orang yang tinggal di Jakarta terlihat lebih fashionable dibanding daerah lainnya.

Kemudian, setelah kita mengetahui keuntungan tinggal di kota besar, tentu saja terdapat kerugiannya tinggal di kota besar ini. Pertama, kualitas udara di kota ini. Sejauh perhatian saya banyak sekali polusi di kota ini karena sebagai kota yang padat penduduk. Banyak angkutan umum kendaraan bermotor, mobil pribadi, dan lainnya yang membuat macet dan polusi.

Kedua, resiko kecelakaan di kota besar seperti Jakarta itu tinggi. Menurut sudut pandang saya hal ini terjadi karena banyak masyarakat di kota besar yang tidak mematuhi peraturan lalu lintas sehinggga menyebabkan terjadinya kecelakaan.

Ketiga, wilayah yang strategis dan serba ada ini membuat hidup boros dan konsumtif. Sejujurnya saya berpikir hal demikian karena saya merasakannya sendiri. Dengan semua tersedia di kota ini membuat saya ingin belanja setiap saat. Tetapi hal ini tergantung pada kepribadian masing-masing orang tidak bisa disamaratakan. Hanya kebanyakan saja seperti itu jadi inilah sisi buruknya yang paling sering kita lihat di kehidupan masyarakat yang tinggal di kota besar salah satunya Jakarta.

Keempat, biaya hidup yang mahal. Secara pribadi, saya merasa bahwa kebutuhan hidup dan biaya hidup disini sangat besar karena pendapatan di kota ini saja besar apalagi kebutuhan hidup sehari-hari. Karena serba mahal dan tidak ada yang namanya gratis.

Kelima, pergaulan bebas. Saya berasumsi bahwa orang yang tidak kuat iman akan tergoda dengan kehidupan gemerlap, kehidupan malam, dan pergaulan yang kurang baik di kota besar seperti Jakarta ini. Jika kita tinggal di kota ini sebaiknya kita bisa menjaga diri. Itulah tadi keuntungan dan kerugian tinggal di kota besar salah satunya di Jakarta. Kita dapat mengambil manfaat dari teks diatas.

 External Media and Media Relations

Practitioners of public relations use printed words, spoken words, images, and combinations of all these communication forms. They use both controlled media and uncontrolled media to communicate with their organizations’ many publics. Controlled media include those in which practitioners have the say over what is said, how it is said, when it is said, and—to some extent—to whom it is said. Many of these were discussed in Chapter 9. Uncontrolled media—sometimes called “earned media”—are those over which practitioners have no direct role in decisions about media content. Instead, media gatekeepers decide if something is reported, what is reported, how it is reported, when it is reported, and to whom it is reported.

Technology has changed our notions about media, especially the concept of mass media. Three key changes with implications for public relations are as follows: (1) audiences have become fragmented, choosing ever smaller niche media for their own unique needs, as opposed to being part of an undifferentiated mass; (2) audiences are more active, choosing two-way media that permit interactivity, as opposed to one-way media that permitted only passive reception of information; and (3) a “citizen journalist” today is anybody with a camera cell phone and Internet access, as opposed to a trained professional who reports the news. What follows is a snapshot of the major media used in public relations. The first part of this chapter examines the traditional media used primarily to reach large and dispersed publics. The second part of the chapter summarizes some of the new media and social media that have changed public relations practice. The chapter concludes with a discussion of media relations, historically one of public relations’ primary assignments. Traditional Media, New Uses Traditional mass media have long provided economical, effective methods of communicating with large and widely dispersed publics. Consequently, work in public relations requires understanding of and skills in using newspapers, magazines, trade publications, radio, television, cable, direct mail, books, and so on. To handle this part of the job, practitioners must understand the role of information, the various media and their production requirements, and the values of the gatekeepers who control access. Practitioners also need to understand that media are constrained by their mechanical requirements, their values, their rules, and—for many—the necessity of “delivering” an audience to advertisers. Today’s communicators are confronted with a paradox: Multiplying channels of communication permit a sharper focus of messages but greatly escalate competition for audience attention. Furthermore, audiences today are more fragmented than in generations past, and they are also more active in the selection of which media messages get their attention. Mass media reach nearly every home and workplace, showering citizens with far more messages than they can absorb. General and specialized media appear to represent an easy way to disseminate ideas and information to publics, but appearances can be deceptive. Just because these media distribute messages and have audiences does not mean that the messages are received, attended to, or acted upon. Additionally, the traditional mass media have a relatively fixed capacity; newspapers and magazines have a limited number of columns for editorial matter, and there are only 24 hours in a broadcast day. Hence, no one of these media can possibly convey all the news and information available. Receivers also have limited time and attention to give to the millions of messages. Even in the 24-hour-every-day media world crammed with messages, only a tiny portion get past the door and into the home by way of traditional media. Few of those get attention. Fewer yet have impact. Nonetheless, mass media constitute the key components in a nation’s public-information system, a system in which public relations practitioners play an increasingly important role as sources for an expanding proportion of the content. Many sources compete for access to media, however, so practitioners must continually adjust their communication strategy to rapidly changing media and audiences. Despite the advent of new media technologies, the idea that “traditional media are dead” is a myth. In fact, findings of a media usage survey by Ketchum and the University of Southern California Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center show that 62 percent of consumers tune in to their local television news, 63 percent read local newspapers, 65 percent watch major network news, and 49 percent watch cable network news.3 Thus, this chapter begins with a discussion of traditional media, because they remain the core of public relations practice. Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 235 Newspapers In spite of declining numbers and decreasing readership, newspapers remain the workhorse of the public information system. When people think of publicity, they almost instinctively think of the newspaper. And for good reason, because newspaper coverage remains the foundation of most political and public policy information programs. . . and frequently serves as the source of much that gets reported in other media. Daily, weekend, Sunday, weekly, semiweekly, ethnic, labor, religious, scholastic, and foreign-language newspapers typically are read by the most literate people, whether online or in print. Forthe most influential citizens—the “opinion leaders” discussed in Chapter 8—reading the newspaper is as much a daily habit as eating and sleeping. In fact, one study found that “readers of newspaper Web sites are 52 percent more likely to share their opinions than those who do not visit newspaper sites.”4 As a result, the influence of the world’s great newspapers is also great. Journalism scholar John C. Merrill refers to these as the “internationally elite newspapers”: Such papers—mainly dailies—are read by the world’s intellectuals, political and opinion leaders, and cosmopolitan, concerned citizens of various countries. They are directed at a fairly homogeneous audience globally and have a greater interest in international relations and the arts and humanities than the general run of mass-appeal papers. They are wellinformed, articulate papers that thoughtful people the world over take seriously.5 U.S. papers on Merrill’s list of elite dailies include The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor—the latter now published online only. His European list includes Le Monde in France, Neue Zürcher Zeitung in Switzerland, El País in Spain, The Daily Telegraph in England, and Svenska Dagbladet in Sweden. Asia’s elite dailies include Japan’s Asahi Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun and India’s The Times of India and The Statesman. In the 2011 European Opinion Leaders Survey (EOLS) of more than 1,600 business executives, politicians, scientists, media staff, and artists in 17 countries, the London-based Financial Times ranked as the most “influential” and “respected” international media title.6 According to Merrill, “The elite papers recognize that they will not reach many people, but they seek to have an impact that no other medium does on the serious, intellectual, opinionleading segment of the world community.”7 Although not on his list of elite papers, the The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and USA Today both reach large U.S. and international audiences, with the WSJ surpassing USA Today as the largest U.S. daily with a worldwide circulation of more than 2.1 million and readership of 4.3 million adults in 80 markets. USA Today has a circulation of more than 1.8 million, with more than 3.2 million readers.8 Newspapers are a moving force in society. As the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said: “To an extent far beyond the public’s own realization, public opinion is shaped by the kind, the volume, and the quality of the news columns.” Nor should editorial endorsement be totally discounted. For example, when last-minute challenges threatened to bring to a halt the “Block E” downtown revitalization project in Minneapolis, public relations firm Carmichael Lynch Spong helped place an opinion piece written with the city mayor in the Star Tribune, the major daily in Minnesota. Within days, the paper’s editorial staff wrote a similarly supportive editorial. The project proceeded without serious opposition and delay. Newspaper scholars have suggested that the power of the press comes from its impact on public interest in important issues (see Chapter 8 for discussion of the agenda-setting function). For example, newspaper readers’ opinions about candidates for public office are affected by whether the local newspaper covered those candidates positively or negatively.9 Although no longer the primary news medium for the majority of Americans, newspapers remain a powerful force in shaping the public agenda and influencing the outcome of debate. In addition, newspapers remain the primary medium when consumers look for advertising, with the Internet second.10 Since the early part of the twentieth century until World War II, when newspapers were the prime source of news and entertainment, the number of daily newspapers has declined. The number 236 Part II • Foundations began to stabilize in the 1950s and remained about the same through the mid-1970s. For example, there were 1,772 daily papers in 1950, with only 16 fewer, 1,756, in 1975. Today, however, the number has dropped to fewer than 1,450 dailies because of mergers and discontinued editions.11 Newspaper circulation in the United States peaked in the early 1990s at almost 63 million, but now is less than 50 million. In 2011, for example, all but 7 of the 25 largest U.S. newspapers reported lower circulation. The New York Times remains the largest Sunday paper with more than 1.3 million subscribers. The Wall Street Journal increased its electronic circulation by 22 percent to more than 500,000.12 The number of daily newspaper readers per copy remains relatively stable at 2.3, but has increased during the past decade to almost 2.6 for Sunday newspapers.13 Although newspaper circulation is decreasing in the United States, Australia, and much of Europe, it is increasing significantly in Africa, South American, and Asia. Total worldwide newspaper circulation totals more than 540 million daily sales, not counting the millions of free newspaper distributed each day, according to the World Association of Newspapers.14 There are now more than 2,700 subscription daily newspapers in India, with an increase of more than 45 percent since 2005. India now has more paid-for newspapers than any other country, and The Times of India is the world’s biggest English-language newspaper, with a circulation of 4 million. According to The Economist, even with 200 million Indians reading newspapers each day, experts predict more growth because broadband remains beyond the reach of most of the almost billion nonsubscribers.15 In a Newspaper Association of America survey, 45 percent of adults said they had read a daily print newspaper or its online edition “yesterday,” 45 percent had read a newspaper last Sunday, and 65 percent had read a daily and/or Sunday print newspaper during the past week. However, only 25 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds read a newspaper daily, compared to more than 55 percent of those 55 and older. On the other hand, more than 58 percent of all college graduates and more than 57 percent of heads of household with incomes greater than $100,000 read newspapers in print or online.16 Newspapers tend to attract disproportionately white readers, however. Forty-nine percent of whites read a daily newspaper, but only 43 percent of African Americans, 38 percent of Asians, and only 27 percent of Hispanic adults.17 The number and circulation of weekly and other newspapers published less than four times each week has rebounded in recent years. There are 6,659 “weeklies” with a total circulation of almost 50 million.18 Most weeklies emphasize local news about government, nonprofit organizations, schools, sports, business developments, and personal news. Likewise, births, weddings, anniversaries, and obituaries are big news. The Sunday paper generally gets a more intensive and leisurely reading. It tends to empha size feature material—stories without a time element—with stories often more like those in a magazine than in a daily paper. In addition, practitioners should not overlook the national Sunday supplement magazines and local weekend magazines published by large-city newspapers. For example, 600 Sunday newspapers distribute Parade Magazine, with a circulation of 32 million and almost 70 million readers. The second-largest Sunday supplement is Gannett Co., Inc.’s USA Weekend, which is distributed by 700 newspapers each weekend with a circulation of almost 23 million and 48 million readers.19 Newspaper space allocated to news has decreased in recent years, at least relative to the increased glut of information pouring into newsrooms. Typically newspapers devote about 50 percent of their space to editorial matter, some as little as 25 percent. The rest is advertising (averaging 46 percent) and unpaid public service (4 percent). Local news makes up the largest proportion of editorial content—about 75 percent of all news published. The strengths of newspapers are many. No other medium offers comparable audience size and breadth, day in and day out, or the range and depth of content. Most newspapers are produced in local communities and are indigenous to those communities. They have a firsthand intimacy with their local publics. The local YMCA can reach its community publics through its local newspaper. The state health department can reach its publics through the state’s daily and weekly newspapers. A commercial concern with regional distribution can reach its publics using a regional selection of newspapers. Similarly, a national organization can reach many national audiences with newspapers. In short, local connections give newspapers a perceived credibility that is hard to match. Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 237 Technology has changed not only the content of newspapers, but also their organizational structures, business models, and how they process news and information (see Exhibit 10.1). Increasingly, newspapers are charging online readers for access to what had been free on the Internet, with almost half of newspapers with circulations under 25,000 implementing “paywalls.”20

But convincing people to pay for online access remains largely an experiment for newspapers. As one skeptic said, “That’s only going to work where you have highly specialized information that’s not available anywhere else.”21 Economics have also changed newspaper relationships. Instead of being fierce competitors with radio and television stations in their markets, many now share the same ownership. As a result, they may share staff and content. Some newspapers form alliances with broadcast and cable media to share content and to attract larger audiences for their advertisers. Hence, the title in Exhibit 10.1—“Newspapers Try to Find Their Way in Changing Times.” Wire Services and News Syndicates News wire services economically and effectively distribute human interest stories and spot news to state, regional, national, or international media. For timely stories not limited to a locale, placing them on the wires increases the likelihood of immediate and widespread coverage. Being carried by a wire service also increases the acceptability of the practitioner’s copy. A well-written wire story can reach newspaper readers, radio listeners, and TV viewers across the nation or around the world. Transmitting millions of words and pictures daily, wire services are influential beyond calculation. Access to these networks is through the nearest bureau or “stringer” correspondent. Each of the two major wire services in the United States operates international, national, regional, state, and local bureaus. In addition to their newspaper subscribers, both serve online and broadcast customers with news copy and audio feeds. Both sell their news reporting services and products to media worldwide. The Associated Press, founded in 1846 and headquartered in New York City, has 3,700 employees working in 300 locations worldwide. “AP”—as it is better known—sends news in six languages to almost 17,000 media subscribers in 121 countries. As the AP website boasts, “On any given day, more than half the world’s population sees news from AP.” It is a not-forprofit cooperative owned by 1,500 member newspaper and broadcast members. Subscribers in the United States include almost 1,700 newspapers, 5,000 radio and television stations, and the AP “Essential News Production System” (AP ENPS) operating in 800 newsrooms in more than 60 countries. In addition, AP markets its news services and content to nonmedia clients. Beginning in early 1993, AP began transmitting publicity photos for a fee, putting it in direct competition with the publicity wire services. (See www.ap.org.) United Press International (UPI) is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has been owned since 2000 by global multimedia company News World Communications. It was formed in 1958 by the merger of United Press (founded in 1907 by newspaper magnate E. W. Scripps) and William Randolph Hearst’s International News Service. UPI operates under the principles that it provides an independent coverage of world news and that any newspaper or news organization may purchase the news product. In addition to English, it provides Middle East news coverage in Arabic and Latin America coverage in Spanish. UPI maintains offices in Beirut, Hong Kong, London, Santiago, Seoul, and Tokyo. (See www.upi.com.) The world’s largest international news agency is New York-based Reuters (formerly based in London), with more than 2,800 full-time editorial staff, journalists, photographers, and videographers working in more than 200 bureaus in more than 100 countries. Even though best known for its news products, about 90 percent of Reuters’ revenue comes from its financial services business, with more than 370,000 financial professionals as subscribers (see http://www. about.reuters.com). Founded in 1851 as an independent company, Reuters was acquired in April 2008 by Stamford, Connecticut–based Thomson Corporation, an international information services company with more than 55,000 employees.22 Internationally, Agence France-Presse (France)—the world’s first international news agency, Xinhua News Agency—“New China News Agency” (People’s Republic of China), and Kyodo News (Japan) are among the other major news services providing news and features to Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 239 newspapers, radio, television, magazines, and private subscribers. These are large organizations with reporters, editors, and other staff in most major capitals and market centers. U.S. and international newspapers also subscribe to news services offered by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, MCT News Service (McClatchyTribune Information Services), and news syndicates such as King Features Syndicate (Hearst Entertainment and Syndication Group), and United Feature Syndicate and Newspaper Enterprises Association (both owned by E. W. Scripps Company). Much like the news wire services, commercial public relations wires provide news from organizations and public relations firms. Practitioners use these distribution services to speed time-critical news releases simultaneously into newsrooms worldwide. PR Newswire (PRN) introduced electronic distribution of news releases in New York City in 1954. PRN now has 26 offices in the United States and 14 other countries (see http:// www.prnewswire. com). Other public relations wires copied the concept, starting competing national systems in the United States, Canada, and England, followed by worldwide news-release distribution systems. For example, Business Wire began operations in 1961 and grew rapidly, totaling more than 500 employees in 26 U.S. offices and offices in Brussels, London, Frankfurt, Paris, Tokyo, Toronto, and Sydney. In 2006, Business Wire became a wholly owned subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (see http://www.businesswire.com) and celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2011. Although they differ greatly in size, all these services operate in essentially the same way: charging clients to electronically transmit text, photographs, audio and video news releases, as well as regulatory postings (such as the required SEC financial disclosures discussed in Chapter 6), to the media and other organizations. Clients pay fees based on the extent and type of distribution ordered, but media receive these news services at no charge. In addition, public relations wire services also sell monitoring and measurement services, providing clients metrics indicating the extent of message dissemination, media placement, and potential audience size. Because they offer fast, simultaneous transmission to the media, practitioners use these wires to send news ranging from major corporate developments, earnings reports, obituaries, and even invitations to news conferences. They are especially useful in times of emergency. For example, when a baby food manufacturer learned that glass shards had been found in a shipment, the commercial news services could quickly and simultaneously distribute a product recall to many media outlets. Another large portion of print and electronic media content is supplied by the feature, photo, and specialized news syndicates. As in the case of the wire services, placement of a feature or a picture with a syndicate ensures wide, economical distribution and increases the acceptability of material. Most syndicates also distribute columns and comics. For example, United Feature Syndicate distributes columns and commentaries, editorial cartoons, and 150 comic strips. Offerings include Scott Adams’s popular “Dilbert,” the late Charles Schulz’s “Peanuts Classics,” and Stephan Pastis’s “Pearls Before Swine.” Syndicates charge fees based on each medium’s circulation or audience size. As in the case of paid publicity wires, there are also feature services that supply newspapers  and periodicals with material without charge. Sponsoring clients pay the bill. Typical is North American Precis Syndicate, Inc. (NAPS), with offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Palm Beach. In its “Featurettes” service, NAPS distributes consumer news and information for 750 public relations firms, corporations, associations, and government public affairs offices to more than 10,000 dailies, weeklies, monthlies, shoppers, and online publications. NAPS’ monthly “Consumer Science News & Notes” goes to 1,000 television stations in the form of video news releases, B-roll, and animated still photos. “Radio Roundup” distributes two-monthly 60- and 3-second spots on CDs, paper scripts, MP3s, and scripts posted on the company’s website. (See http://www.napsnet.com.) Courtesy PR Newswire 240 Part II • Foundations Magazines More than 20,700 magazines and specialized publications published in the United States offer effective specialized channels of communication to narrowly defined audiences.23 Variations in content and audience appeal are almost limitless and ever changing, attracting more than 325 million subscriptions and single copy sales.24 In 2010 alone, hopeful publishers launched 180 new magazines, but based on historical trends, only one in three will survive more than five years, disappointing enthusiastic publishers who had visions of attracting both subscribers and advertisers.25 Historians generally agree that Benjamin Franklin originated the concept of a magazine when he published General Magazine in January 1741.26 Technically, Andrew Bradford’s American Magazine was the first American magazine, because it appeared in print three days before Franklin’s magazine. Historians also agree, however, that America’s first “national medium” was Franklin’s Saturday Evening Post, first published in 1821. Magazines provide an array and variety of communication media to reach audiences who share common interests, including websites now produced by more than 7,000 consumer magazines.27 Circulation giants such as AARP The Magazine, Reader’s Digest, TV Guide, Better Homes and Gardens, National Geographic, Good Housekeeping, Family Circle, Ladies Home Journal, Woman’s Day, Time, and People reach large national audiences. More narrowly targeted magazines include Cooking Light, More, Rolling Stone, Wired, Wine Spectator, Fine Homebuilder, and Architectural Digest. Trade and business magazine include Hoard’s Dairyman, Women’s Wear Daily, The Economist, BusinessWeek, Fortune, and Forbes. The sports-recreation-hobby magazines category includes Art of the West, Golf Digest, Field & Stream, Motor Trend, Popular Science, Snowboarder, and Outdoor Life. Clearly, magazines enable communicators to target specific messages to specific audiences. The changing magazine market—from general to specialized publications—reflects the nation’s changing interests and lifestyles. There is a magazine or periodical catering to almost every interest, vocation, and hobby. Advances in offset printing and computerized production have stimulated circulation and advertising revenues by giving advertisers options for buying targeted portions of the total circulation. Farm Journal, published since 1877, customizes each issue according to subscribers’ crops, livestock, farm size, and location, once producing an issue with almost 9,000 different versions.28 Regional advertising in such national magazines as Time and Newsweek, for example, allows advertisers to advertise to a market within a market, even local markets, based on subscribers’ ZIP codes. Thousands of business and professional publications serve the specialized needs of professional groups, trade associations, and business and industry. These publications generally use prepared news releases if the content serves their readers’ economic or professional needs. Each of these publications caters to a carefully defined audience, usually representing the membership lists of the organization publishing the magazine. Examples include PRSA’s The Strategist, IABC’s Communication World, and the American Medical Association’s American Medical News. In addition to collecting subscription fees built into membership fees, many of these publications carry advertising for products and services specific to readers’ occupations or professional practices. Magazines offer several advantages: Opinion leaders read magazines. For example, one study showed that fashion opinion leaders were more likely to read fashion magazines than were non-opinion leaders on fashion-related topics.29 Also, young and diverse populations read magazines. For example, 83 percent of African American adults read magazines, as do 75 percent of Hispanics/Latinos. Sixty-six percent of teenagers read magazines.30 Magazines provide more durable information than newspapers. Magazine readers have the opportunity to read, reread, discuss, and debate the information gleaned from this source. Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 241 Readers with special interests turn to magazines for in-depth treatment of topics, such as when older citizens report that magazines are second only to health care specialists as a source for health information. Magazines shape opinions, create preferences for fashions and products, influence house designs and decoration, help set standards for professions and businesses, and enlist political support. And even though most magazines are now available online, 87 percent of readers still want a printed copy.31 Practitioners study magazines’ topics, styles, policies, trends, formats, and so forth, and then apply this knowledge by targeting news and features to specific magazines. They generally do not submit unsolicited material, however. Rather, they work on a tip or query basis when they have something that would have reader appeal. They submit story outlines or feature suggestions. If one is accepted, a practitioner works with the magazine’s staff or freelance writers to develop the story. The practitioner’s job is to sell ideas to editors and then to cooperate with writers and photographers, who build the ideas into articles. Magazine publicity placement is almost essential for organizations seeking to influence national or specialized audiences. Yet many practitioners fail in their efforts to get such publicity because they do not understand the lead time of national magazines and the stiff competition for space. The competition comes from the magazine’s own editors and staff writers, frequent contributors, and freelance writers who write regularly for national magazines. Practitioners sometimes overlook working with freelancers. Freelance writers who regularly sell to national magazines are interested in a story about an institution, a person, or an event that possesses at least one of these three qualities: (1) national importance or significance; (2) elements of struggle, conflict, contest, or drama; and (3) anecdotal enrichment and entertainment value. In other words, give the story to a freelance writer. The experienced freelancer known to the magazine gets a check from the magazine, and the practitioner gets a publicity placement in a magazine. Radio Radio offers a wide range of publicity possibilities. It is a mobile medium suited to a mobile people. (Newspaper people like to point out that their medium is also “mobile,” and batteries are not required. That appears to be changing, however, with the growing number of subscribers using e-readers, such as the iPad.) Radio reaches the shower and breakfast table in the morning; rides to and from work in the car; goes along to the beach, to the woods, and on fishing trips; and lulls us to sleep at night—a flexibility no other medium can match. Radio listening in the United States remains relatively constant at two and a half hours a day, or about 16 hours each week. On a typical weekday, 73 percent of adults listen to radio in vehicles and 28 percent listen at home. Every day, more than 71 percent of those aged 12 years and older listen to radio—reaching a daily audience of more than 183 million listeners. Also, in the United States, about 57 million aged 12 and older listen to the radio via the Internet, up from 29 million online radio listeners the previous year. Of those online radio listeners, 63 percent had a profile on a social networking site such as MySpace, Facebook, or LinkedIn.32 This information illustrates how old media, with new uses and users, continue to be relevant to public relations practice. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lists 14,420 licensed full-power radio stations in the United States, of which 3,151 are public “educational” FM stations. There are 4,790 AM stations and 6,479 FM stations.33 The total number of stations is almost 25,000, when Internet streaming AM and FM stations, and high-definition digital AM and FM stations, are included.34 The AM dial is so crowded that nearly half the AM stations (“daytimers”) have to shut down 15 minutes after sunset to avoid interfering with others’ signals. Subscription satellite radio is a fast-growing option, because it is usually free of advertisements and offers an array of format choices. Public relations practitioners use radio news releases and audio feeds sent to stations through networks such as CNN (Atlanta, GA, http://www.cnn.com), North American Network 242 Part II • Foundations (Bethesda, MD, http://www.nanradio.com/services.htm), and News Broadcast Network (New York City, http://www.newsbroadcastnetwork.com). Distribution is over the Internet or telephone lines to stations targeted by region and format. CNN Podcasts, for example, distributes audio feeds to affiliated stations worldwide, 24 hours a day with four minutes of news on the hour, two-minute updates 30 minutes later, and one-minute news cutaways. To increase local station airings, some audio news services also provide interviews or sound bites that stations then localize. Even though it is a “mass” medium, radio possesses the qualities of direct, personal touch, because it uses the spoken word, for the most part, to convey its message. Broadcast pioneer Arthur Godfrey understood this intimate quality when he decided that other radio speakers were reading to, not talking with, their audiences. He decided that he would always have a mental image of talking to only one person on the other side of the microphone. Indeed, radio is a person-to-person medium that flourishes on conversation. Call-in talk shows now help set the public agenda and provide a forum for public debate on many local and national issues. The potential impact is great. For example, listeners of radio talk shows tend to reflect the even more partisan political orientations of show hosts, such as those of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh.35 Almost every major city has its own radio all-talk shows that capitalize on local conflict, sensational topics, and legitimate public debate of important issues. Increased emphasis on the discussion format opens up many possibilities for practitioners. Popular talk shows and telephone interviews focusing on controversial issues have an almost insatiable appetite for guests with a message—however controversial it may be. Free public service time on radio seldom is prime listening time, but it is not without value. Since the Federal Communications Commission relaxed its public service requirements for broadcasters, many stations have reduced the number of public service and other nonrevenue programs they broadcast. Yet most stations provide some free time to nonprofit agencies as part of the station’s community relations program. In non-prime time, the competition for airtime is less intense than during the more desirable—and sellable—drive time and other high-listenership hours. That is not to say, however, that nonprofit organizations do not have access to prime time. One approach is to provide radio (and television) public service announcements (PSAs)— 10 seconds, 30 seconds, or 60 seconds in length. A PSA is any announcement that promotes programs and services of government and voluntary agencies, for which no payment is made to the station. Stations set their own standards, but most use well-prepared PSAs. And they can be effective. For example, the Ad Council produces and distributes PSAs promoting use of seat belts, booster seats, and baby seats, no doubt saving many lives. Local, regional, and state groups promote recycling, storm water pollution prevention, and litter reduction. (For one example, see “Don’t Mess with Texas” at http://dontmesswithtexas.org.) Television The communication phenomenon of the twentieth century was television. No other medium matches television’s ability to provide a window on the world. What other medium could transmit live coverage from the international space station as an astronaut and cosmonaut make repairs outside the craft? How could any other medium convey the sights, sounds, and feelings of the unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco, Libya, and Syria during the “Arab Spring” of 2011? And most vivid of all, what other medium could convey the horror of the earthquake and tsunami devastation of northeastern Japan? Television combines the printed word, spoken word, video, color, music, animation, and sound effects into one message, making it a powerful medium. As discussed in Chapter 8, television’s ability to shape our views of the world is explained by cultivation theory. Television offers a vast range of possibilities for telling a story—from a terse 30-second video on a TV newscast, to a half-hour or one-hour documentary, to 24-hour coverage of a crisis such as Hurricane Katrina Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 243 and the riots in London, to a miniseries extended over several evenings or weeks. Satellites relay news to and from any place on the globe, making the powerful, pervasive impact of television a worldwide phenomenon. In 1963, television became the primary source of news in the United States, surpassing newspapers. In the United States, 1,782 commercial and educational television stations broadcast almost around the clock to nearly every household.36 More than 6,100 cable systems in the United States, carrying an average of more than 100 channels, give viewers more options than they can carefully consider.37 The average time a television is on in a household surpasses the length of a typical workday—8 hours and 21 minutes—and reaches 90 percent of adults.38 Children spend an average of three and a half hours each day watching television.39 They grow up using the remote control to explore a seemingly endless array of program services such as Disney, Discovery, Black Entertainment Television (BET), ESPN, TNT, HBO, CNN, and C-SPAN, to name but a few. This is our most intimate mass medium, yet it provides information about weather, traffic, and sports to more than half the population each day.40 Television rears our young, serves as the prime source of news and entertainment for most Americans, and provides a powerful soapbox from which citizens’ protests can be communicated to the nation and the world. This medium has greatly altered national election campaigns and diminished the role of the political parties. Researchers in Germany, for example, found that the agenda reflected on TV newscasts changed not only awareness of problems but also voting intentions.41 National and international wire services and global TV news networks have created a truly global forum. Events made large by TV shape public opinion worldwide. Television greatly heightens citizen awareness of the conduct of public institutions. It also creates a sense of frustration for citizens, who witness much that they cannot control—be it the war in Afghanistan, collapse of the World Trade Center towers, bodies of drug war victims in Mexico, bloated stomachs of starving Somali children and refugees in Kenya, those left homeless after a tornado destroyed much of Joplin, Missouri, and the long lines of the desperate unemployed waiting to interview for low-paying jobs. In fact, some research has documented “compassion fatigue,” meaning that people who are exposed constantly to bad news on television just get tired of hearing about it and become less prone to doing something about it.42 Even with the popularity of the Internet, television remains an integral part of our lives; one study found that 46 percent of consumers who go online regularly visit the website of a television network.43 Heavy reliance on television as a primary source of news disturbs thoughtful observers who know that the limits of time and dominance of dramatic pictures inevitably oversimplify and distort the news. For example, evening network shows, watched by millions of people each night, must tell the story of the world in 4,000 words or less, the equivalent of four columns in a standard-sized newspaper. A “major” story gets 58 seconds. Before retiring from the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS (now the NewsHour), Robert MacNeil bluntly admitted, In most of the stories television cares to cover there is always the “right bit,” the most violent, the most bloody, the most pathetic, the most tragic, the most wonderful, the most awful moment. Getting the effective “bit” is what television news is all about.44 The wide range of news stories and time pressures in television news, coupled with today’s news values and technology, produces a compound of fiction and fact in terse fragments to viewers around the world. One problem in journalism today is that news media often are citing other news media as sources of information, rather than verifying the news independently. Local television stations also contract with news services and independent journalists in other cities worldwide for news feeds reported under the banner of the local station. Not only is the source of the news ambiguous, or even misleading, but also so may be the journalistic integrity of the “news.” This is especially evident when the “news” is about the trials and tribulations of the remaining “survivors,” or about the stars du jour in the latest “reality” series. 244 Part II • Foundations Practitioners “pitch” story ideas to TV producers. Producers then decide if an author’s new book is reviewed, if the CEO is interviewed, or if a personality appears on network shows such as NBC’s Today and CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman, or on syndicated shows such as Anderson (Cooper) and Ellen DeGeneres (or similar local programs). Perhaps the most common technique for placing a message on television, however, is providing video for news or documentary programs in the form of a video news release (VNR). Critics charge that it is unethical to use VNRs in newscasts without telling viewers that an outside source provided the video. The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) has long warned that using VNRs “is just one way in which government, corporations and others try to influence the content of news.” 45 However, local television news directors are pressed to fill expanding “news holes” over multiple platforms with smaller staffs and reduced budgets. Consequently, local news operations are increasingly dependent on public relations sources, although they are loathe to admit that reality. In fact, most stations require disclosure or clear labeling when using VNR content. Satellite transmission makes it possible to instantaneously distribute public relations messages. The satellite media tour (SMT) has replaced the time-consuming and expensive city hopping that was formerly part of political campaigns, crisis communication programs (see Tylenol Exhibit 1.3), movie openings, product launches, and breaking news. Turn on any morning news show and you see anchors interviewing doctors, writers, entertainers, CEOs and other experts. Most of the time the interviews are via satellite from locations other than the anchors’ TV stations. . . .In the course of two or three hours, a typical SMT can cover 12 to 20 stations.46 SMTs work best when local stations cannot produce the same story themselves, when the story fits morning programming before being bumped by breaking news, and when the story calls for top management appearances on the global television medium. Cable and Satellite Television Television comes into our homes not only through the publicly accessible broadcast networks but also via cable and satellite, with increasing competition among these delivery systems. The growth of cable and satellite television with its 500-plus channels and high-definition capabilities has profoundly altered the nation’s communication and viewing patterns. Cable was born in 1948, when the first community antenna television (CATV) system was built in a small Pennsylvania community that suffered from poor television reception. Advertising-supported cable channels collectively now have more than a greater share of the television audience than do the broadcast networks—60 percent to 40 percent.47 It was Cable News Network’s (CNN) live coverage of the 1986 Challenger shuttle disaster; the round-the-clock coverage of the 1991 Gulf War and 2003 Iraq War; and 24-hour coverage of the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, however, that made cable news a major player in the global information system. CNN coverage was so complete that several network affiliates and many independent stations carried CNN reports and still contract for news packages. As new technology expands the channel-carrying capacity and converts systems to on-demand programming, cable and satellite TV may become only part of the packages of services carried. Cable companies offer interactive services such as shopping, banking, information databases, local and long-distance telephone services, and emergency alert connections to police and fire departments. Digital and video recorders, currently in 40 percent of households, and other personal video recorders give viewers flexibility as to when they watch programs, called “time-shifted viewing.”48 Fiber-optic and asymmetric digital subscriber line (DSL) networks link viewers 24 hours a day directly to central computers to retrieve and send information. Just as futurists had predicted, Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 245 the line between television, telephone, other media, and home computers has blurred, as both information and entertainment services are delivered to homes over cable, wire, and satellite systems. The next section examines new media and their increasing roles in public relations practice. New Media, New Challenges and Opportunities The Internet was the “game-changer” in the communication revolution, because nearly all new media are Internet based and almost all “old” media have developed an online presence. For public relations practitioners, the new media environment offers at least four challenges: (1) staying abreast of changing technology, (2) responding to the demand for transparency, (3) dealing with new media players who communicate directly with organizational stakeholders, and (4) representing organizations in the new social media environment. Staying Abreast of Changing Technology Digital and social media technologies have changed how public relations is practiced. The rapidity of change and the transformed global marketplace are forcing public relations practitioners to adjust. Ann Lewnes of Adobe Systems, Inc. (San Jose, California) summed up the change pressures: I think that the world has become a very small place and we have to adapt ourselves accordingly. . . . Social [media] plays a big role in that. One bad review, one comment from an executive about your company changes everything, and you need to be responsive in a way that you never were before. You need 24-hour customer support; you need people who are talented at moving quickly analyzing results. It’s just a totally different game.49 However, many public relations practitioners limit use of the expanding array of new digital and social media, instead relying on traditional media and message dissemination, albeit now by email or the organization’s website. But that is changing, according to Lewnes, “. . .When hiring younger people, we look for social media expertise.”50 Another new focus for public relations practitioners is ensuring that the organizations they represent can be easily found by those seeking information. Thus, search engine optimization (SEO) has become another tool in the practitioner’s toolkit. Basically, SEO means trying to get an organization’s name to appear at the top or near the top of the list when someone does an online search on the organization’s category or topic. One study showed that search engines drive Internet traffic for 84 percent of users.51 Google—the most popular search engine in the United States—produces search results based on both their relevance and importance to a search request. But one thing that search engines do not do is ensure the veracity of the information contained in the sites they sort. Of course, information—truthful or not—spreads rapidly online, and savvy practitioners know that they need to be vigilant in scanning the digital media environment, “where rogue opinions can flourish and multiply.”52 This means that public relations practitioners must constantly monitor organizational reputations online. As counselor Mike Greece wrote in The Public Relations Strategist, “It used to be enough to read the morning papers on the way to work. That’s no longer a sufficient defense for the constant flow of news, information and opinions on a global and democratized Web that never sleeps.”53 Rather, new media allow for participation of the public in “unmediated conversations”: The empowerment of the Internet has magnified the intensity of opinions and made everyone an expert capable of transmitting his or her feelings at will through such contentsharing channels as YouTube, Twitter, Jaiku and Facebook, among many others.54 For public relations practitioners, this means building relationships with organizational publics not only in the real world, but also in the virtual world (see Exhibit 10.2).

Recognizing the Global Transparency Imperative Rapidly changing technology makes transparency mandatory; it is simply foolish to think that bad news can be hidden, mistakes can remain secret, and misdeeds will not get reported. Controlling what is made public is no longer possible to the extent it was before the Internet took that power away from organizations of all types. As researcher Brad Rawlins observed: The Internet raises transparency to a new level by providing the means for those with information to share their knowledge . . . . Virtually anyone can find any opinion on any subject with a few simple searches through the Internet. And once found, those opinions can be expanded, editorialized, and shared around the world within seconds.55 Rachel Kay, Principal Rachel Kay Public Relations* Solana Beach, California Only five or so years ago, words like “viral,” “blog,” and “social network” took the communication field by storm. Public relations practitioners had to augment their communication arsenals to make room for a whole new set of tools and a whole new set of rules. Like the speed with which the public relations landscape has changed with social media, the vehicles in which to send communication also change and evolve overnight, and we’re tasked with keeping up and keeping clients and employers current. The days of haggling over a crisis response for 24 to 48 hours are no more—constituents on social networks demand attention, and brands and organizations may have just a couple of hours, or minutes, to respond. In 2008, Motrin, a well-known painkiller, unveiled a campaign aimed toward “babywearing” moms, or those who carry their babies in slings. The online and print-based ad campaign insinuated, among other things, that moms who wear their babies do so to look like official moms and to be in fashion. It only took a couple of women who found the campaign offensive to rally thousands of women across the social Web via Twitter (complete with #motrinmoms hashtag), a Facebook group, blog posts, and a YouTube montage of moms cradling their babies to ignite a firestorm flamed by both traditional and social media alike. Many practitioners agree that sensitivity and response time were catalysts for the level of anger that resulted from the ad. Motrin was not watching the real-time reactions spreading like wildfire on Twitter, and it took more than 48 hours for the company’s team to pull the ad and apologize; what seemed like an eternity for consumers who expected an instant response. The debacle became a classic case study for how important it is for brands to monitor mentions of their companies online, to respond as quickly as possible, and to have a social media crisis communication plan in place. It’s critical for brands and companies to develop a protocol and process for social media—the rapid-fire nature of platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Quora, and blogs don’t allow for a complex and arduous process of draft, edit, rewrite, and so on. As the online “face” of a company, brand representatives must be agile in issuing responses while ensuring the tone, accuracy, and quality of responses are in line with the principles of company they represent. Like anywhere else, consumers can be very forgiving when a crisis occurs as long as the company comes across as apologetic and humble and responds without delay. It’s imperative to remember that no communication is truly private in the age of social media. A small, regional foodthemed magazine, Cooks Source, was accused by a freelance writer of taking content that she wrote from the Web, making a couple of changes, and adding it to the magazine’s editorial without permission or payment. The writer sent an email to the magazine’s editor requesting an apology and donation to the Columbia School of Journalism in lieu of payment. The editor’s snide response suggested that anything available online was free for the taking and refused any restitution, even going so far as to say the writer should compensate her for time in editing the piece. The writer posted the correspondence online, which as with all things social media, was quickly shared far and wide across the Internet in fiery blog posts, scathing comments on Cook’s Source’s Facebook page, and over Twitter with its own dedicated hashtags. Online sleuths uncovered and posted additional examples of plagiarized work. Days passed and eventually statements by Cook Source were released, but the combative, unapologetic tone simply encouraged more mocking and negative feedback. The fiasco shut the magazine down completely. The inherent unrestricted nature of social media means target publics have more power than ever before to take complaints public and gather support. It’s essential for organizations and public relations practitioners to adjust their communication strategies to adequately respond to public outcry in a timely and sensitive manner. *Rachel Kay Public Relations (RKPR) is a public relations firm servicing national brands and companies. Exhibit 10.2 Speed, Agility, and Humility in the Age of Social Media Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 247 The world watched in amazement how social media forced transparency even in decadesold autocracies in the Middle East during the 2011 “Arab Spring” uprisings. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube provided participants ways to communicate with each other even when traditional means were shut down or censored. These new communication media made it possible for protesting citizens to share within their own communities, as well as with the rest of the world, their demands for political, economic, and cultural change. Text and images gave the world descriptions of what appeared to be ordinary citizens engaged in peaceful demonstrations being met with violent reactions from armed soldiers and pro-government thugs. As protests spread from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, Qatar Media Corporation’s Al Jazeera news network launched a Twitter dashboard showing the average number of tweets per minute in five of those countries. According to Ed Schipul and Daniel Keeney, who wrote the story in PRSA’s Tactics, social media “can expose anyone interested to the energy, passion and outrage that people are experiencing on the ground. Then you have them hooked.”56 All organizations are vulnerable to the scrutiny of those armed with both new media technologies and a story to tell—praising or criticizing, true or false, fair or biased, night or day, local or global. As GolinHarris public relations counselor Scott Farrell describes the situation: “Today, one activist armed with social media tools can effectively take on a small army of communicators or even an entire company.”57 And an organization cannot hide or withhold information in the social media environment. One study found that failure to disclose in social media campaigns damages the organization–public relationship and erodes the credibility of the organization.58 Dealing with Media Convergence and New Media Players As noted earlier in this chapter, most traditional media outlets have moved onto the Internet, creating their own online presence and editions. In the imagery of Chapter 7’s systems theory, traditional media outlets are simply responding to change pressures from a radically changed competitive environment. The biggest changes may be the explosive increase in information sources and the loss of traditional media outlets’ control over the flow of information. Rather than having to rely on traditional media and on gatekeepers’ decisions regarding what information gets published or broadcast, public relations sources now are able to go directly to target audiences or indirectly through a wide range of new “media.” David Meerman Scott described the new options: Instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars per month on a media relations program that tries to convince a handful of reporters at select magazines, newspapers, and TV stations to cover us, we should be targeting the plugged-in bloggers, online news sites, micropublications, public speakers, analysts, and consultants that reach the targeted audiences that are looking for what we have to offer. . . .We have the power to create our own brand in the niche of our own choosing.59 Media convergence and the move to the Internet put pressure on organizations to coordinate and integrate communication functions that traditionally operated in their separate “silos.” Internal and external communication programs have to be using the same message strategy, because search engines will access all available sources for those seeking information. Thus, companies like IBM, Intuit, and GE have put all communication functions under a single C-suite executive.60 The need for having only one voice is particularly important in times of crisis: “There’s a reason the President of the United States has a press secretary, and not 20 people in the White House speaking for him,” according to author Peter Shankman.61 The new media environment also means that practitioners must work with nontraditional media gatekeepers and influencers—such as bloggers—who have the ability to shape an organization’s digital environment. For example, when the Democrats met in Charlotte, NC, 248 Part II • Foundations and the Republicans in Tampa, Florida, for their national conventions in 2012, bloggers worked as “credentialed media” alongside reporters from the traditional news organizations. But of course, bloggers did not have to attend the conventions to become publishers of news and ­opinions about the issues, speakers, and candidates. For those in virtual communities of like-thinking participants, blogs have become the sources of choice in the interconnected and digitalized cyberspace. According to technorati.com, a website that reports Internet developments and news of interest to technophiles, half of the world’s bloggers are in the United States, 29 percent in Europe, and 12 percent in Asian and Pacific countries. One in four engage in “mobile blogging” from their smartphone or tablet, leading to shorter and more spontaneous blogs.62 Public relations practitioners are increasingly monitoring the “blogosphere,” but their relationship with bloggers remains tenuous because “bloggers want 100 percent access, and PR people want control. The level of transparency that bloggers think they should [get] is higher [than the level media expect].”63 Nevertheless, blogs remain a useful tool for practitioners trying to reach Web-savvy publics, both by attracting blog coverage and by creating their own blogs as part of a communication strategy. Finally, public relations practitioners must acknowledge that new technology today means that anyone with a camera phone can “report” the news. Often called “citizen journalists,” these individuals are invited even by mainstream media outlets to share the news in their communities by sending in video clips to major news outlets for possible dissemination to a wide audience. For example, when terrorists attacked the Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi Trident luxury hotels in Mumbai, India, November 26, 2008, Twitter reports broke the news within minutes, well ahead of traditional media. “Tweets” posted at a rate of more than 70 every five seconds provided eyewitness accounts as the tragedy unfolded.64 Likewise, when U.S. Airways flight 1549 made a watery but safe landing in the Hudson River that January 15, 2009, afternoon, the first Twitter report of the accident occurred one minute later. (See Figure 10.1)

This kind of citizen journalism via cell phones and the Internet has the potential not only to inform communities during crises, but also to promote democracy around the world by empowering individuals to share their voices. After a terrorist attack in Madrid, for example, angry text messages about the conservative government’s poor response to the crisis resulted in the Socialist party winning the next election.65 Similarly, when exit polls in a presidential election in South Korea showed that the candidate most popular with young voters was losing, His supporters hit the chat rooms to drum up support. Within minutes more than 800,000 e-mails were sent to mobiles to urge supporters to go out and vote. . . .By 2 p.m., [their candidate] took the lead and went on to win the election. A man with little support from either the mainstream media or the nation’s conglomerates sashayed into office on an Internet on-ramp.66 Representing Organizations in the Social Media Conceptually, public relations is about building organization–public relationships, but the tools to do so have been woefully inadequate...until now. Traditional media outlets worked well for disseminating information (one way) to specific target publics. Getting the publics’ responses, however, could be difficult and, in some cases, expensive. Practitioners often had to seek out public reactions, opinions, and behavioral responses through surveys or complex monitoring systems. Social media changed all of that. Instead of “telling and selling,” and hoping for the desired response, social media make it possible to actively engage stakeholders, to create a conversation exchanging information and views. Social media tools build communities, empower stakeholders, and facilitate two-way communication. For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama campaign relied on social media to demonstrate transparency and to build relationships with the grassroots: “Campaign managers used the Internet strategically to create a conversation, even when comments might have been negative about the candidate.”67 That ability to engage stakeholders in ongoing two-way communication gives social media an advantage over almost all other media in the practitioner’s tool kit. For example, Goodwill Industries International Inc. organizes its Twitter followers by interests so they can monitor tweet activity and share information. Its Facebook page engages volunteers and supporters, demonstrating Goodwill values them and their hard work in helping people “reach their fullest potential through the power of work.” Social media also transform employee communication, replacing the top–down model of old with a participative network of engaged employees. An example of how social media changed internal communication occurred at the international consulting and accounting firm, U.S.-based Deloitte. Many of the almost 46,000 employees work at client locations, not in Deloitte offices. In exit interviews, one in four departing employees said that feeling isolated was the primary reason they were leaving Deloitte. The company responded by creating a social networking site, “D Street,” to encourage employee interactions. Employee communication counselor Alison Davis reports that 80 percent of Deloitte employees use the site to find other employees and to participate in groups, share experience and build a sense of community. According to Davis, social media require a different approach: “It’s evolutionary. It starts small and gradually builds an audience. It morphs, often in unexpected directions.”68 Describing developments in new media technology produces information with the shelf life of an avocado or guacamole. By the time this chapter is published, no doubt some of the examples will be passé. How will BranchOut on Facebook impact professional networking and the 120 million users on LinkedIn? How will Google+ impact Facebook? Whatever happens, the overriding conclusion is obvious: Rapidly evolving technology is changing how media tools are used to communicate with stakeholder publics. The key for public relations is that the new technology facilitates interactive communication, the essence of building and maintaining relationships. 250 Part II • Foundations Working with the Media Knowing about the media—knowing how to work with each medium, create content for each, address each medium’s audiences, adhere to specific style requirements, and meet the deadlines of each—is a major part of many practitioners’ jobs. Practitioners must build and maintain relationships of mutual respect and trust with media gatekeepers. These relationships, although mutually beneficial, remain somewhat adversarial at their core, because journalists and practitioners are not in the same business and often do not have the same communication goals. The Person in the Middle To be effective in the go-between and mediating roles, practitioners must have the confidence of both their organization’s management and the media. This is not an easy job. CEOs and other line managers are naturally suspicious of the media, just as journalists are by nature questioning and somewhat untrusting of those they put in the spotlight. Practitioners and others in organizations complain: “Why do the media always sensationalize things?” “Journalists never get things right.” “I didn’t say that!” “They take things out of context or twist things to fit their story.” For example, the Queen of England’s late father, King George VI, collected newspaper clippings in a scrapbook titled “Things my daughters never did.”69 And that was before the days of Star, National Enquirer, and Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World (no longer publishing)! Journalists counter: “That organization never tells the truth!” “We don’t get to talk with the person who has the real story and real news.” “What we get is PR fluff.” “You get the feeling they’re trying to hide something.” “Spacegrabbers!” This is not breaking news. The conflict between journalists and public relations practitioners has a long history of contradiction: Journalists wanted information to be easily available, yet resented the men and women who made it available. By the mid twentieth century, journalists were dependent upon PR practitioners for a large percentage of the stories appearing in newspapers. But admitting their dependence would shatter cherished ideals. Journalists were proud of their ability to uncover stories, verify details, and expose sham. Thus, they were unlikely to admit their dependence, lack of skepticism, failure to verify, and failure to expose every sham.70 The adversarial—sometimes even hostile—feelings that exist between practitioners and journalists often spill over into public debate. Herbert Schmertz, Mobil Corporation vice president of public affairs in the 1980s, criticized journalists and media performance by providing what he called “constructive, responsible criticism.”71 Mobil periodically used its advocacy advertising to criticize the media (see Figure 10.2), to which Schmertz credits substantial progress in improving print coverage of his corporation and business in general. He saved his harshest criticism for television news and: The questionable values that afflict TV journalism—the slavery to ratings. . .the pandering to the lowest common denominator. . .the emotional presentation to entice a larger audience . . .the subversion of news values to entertainment values. . .the ruthless compression of facts to fit preordained timetables.72 Schmertz was not alone in his criticism. General Motors counterattacked when NBC News reporters staged accidents and fires involving GM’s full-sized pickups, claiming that the vehicles were unsafe because of fuel tank design and placement. The report aired on “Dateline NBC” under the title “Waiting to Explode.” The report did not disclose, however, that incendiary rockets had been taped under the trucks and timed to go off on impact to ignite any spilled gasoline. The gas tanks had been “topped off” before the “test” and fitted with a nonstandard cap that allowed the gasoline to escape. GM sued NBC and the Institute of Safety Analysis, which had conducted the crash tests—a first in GM’s history. After GM presented a convincing challenge to the Dateline NBC segment, NBC admitted fault and apologized to viewers and to GM. GM dropped the lawsuit. NBC fired three reporters, and NBC News President Michael Gartner resigned. Others share the acrimony. When Meg Greenfield was The Washington Post editorial page editor, she issued a memo barring practitioners entry to editorial offices: “We don’t want any of that damned crowd around here.” Subsequently, Post executive editor Ben Bradlee extended the ban, forbidding reporters to talk to public relations sources, a directive quickly ignored because reporters depend on public relations sources for news leads.73 In fact, 90 percent of journalists admit to getting story ideas from news releases, and 89 percent say they rely on public relations contacts for information.74 Researchers in the United Kingdom recently learned that about three of every five stories in British newspapers and in radio and television news reports came from reprinted or rewritten press releases. They said their findings “illustrate that journalists’ reliance on these news sources is extensive and raises significant questions concerning claims to journalistic independence in UK news media and journalists’ role as a fourth estate.”75 Thus, practitioners and journalists operate in a mutually dependent and mutually beneficial relationship, sometimes as adversaries and sometimes as colleagues cooperating in each of their self-interests. Not as frequently, but occasionally, the news media are manipulated by practitioners, who may have more resources, as well as controlling access to news sources. With at least equal frequency, news media frustrate practitioners in their attempts to get information to publics. The growth of new media outlets and the continuing reduction of staff resources for traditional journalism outlets pose a threat to the integrity of the public information system. The influential magazine, The Economist, raised this concern in an article titled, “Slime-slinging: Flacks Vastly Outnumber Hacks These Days. Caveat Lector.” According to the article, the number of public relations staff doubled from 45 per 100,000 U.S. population to 90 between 1980 and 2009. During the same period, the number of journalists dropped from 20 to 15 per 100,000 U.S. population. Job cuts and online obligations mean journalists are also more desperate for copy, making them a softer touch. . .As newsrooms have been slimmed and PR agencies have grown fatter, for each American journalist there are now, on average, six flacks hassling him to run crummy stories.76 In short, the underlying conflicts of interest and of mission necessarily make the practitioner–journalist relationship adversarial. The practitioner advancing a particular cause or organization stands in stark contrast to the journalist’s drive to dig up news through good reporting and journalistic initiative. Researchers in one study, however, concluded: “The two fields have advanced from their beginnings to a point where they can recognize that their counterparts are professionals with similar news values and, in their own ways, are also serving beneficial social roles.”77 Based on the experience of more than a century, the adversarial relationship appears to serve the public interest and the needs of the public information system. Guidelines for Good Media Relations The sound approach for organizations and practitioners is to view media relations as an investment. Accuracy and fairness in press coverage does not result from reporters’ work alone. Ultimately, the relationship between practitioners and journalists has an impact on the quality of news coverage about organizations.78 Those relationships can best be achieved when practitioners follow a few basic rules: 1. Shoot straight. It is not just politically correct to counsel “honesty is the best policy” in dealing with the media; it is good business and good common sense. Jerry Dalton Jr., past PRSA national president, says the practitioner’s most important asset in dealing with the media Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 253 is credibility: “It must be earned, usually over a period of time. It means simply that a reporter can trust [the practitioner] totally, and vice versa. It means never lying. If you can’t, for some legitimate reason, speak the truth, then say nothing.”79 Journalists point out that good and bad news tend to even out over time, so if practitioners are honest with bad news, then they are more likely to be trusted with good news. Another fundamental principle is that a practitioner cannot favor one news outlet at the expense of others. The safest rule is that spot news should go out to all relevant media as fast as possible, letting the media determine the cycle in which it breaks. Less time-sensitive feature material should be alternated evenly among the competitors. As a corollary, practitioners must protect journalistic initiative. For example, if a reporter gets a tip and asks for information, the story belongs to that journalist. The same information should not be given to other outlets unless they come after it. This is a policy with which no reporter can justly quarrel, because each of them would demand the same protection for their scoops. 2. Give service. The quickest, surest way to gain the cooperation of journalists is to provide them with newsworthy, interesting, and timely stories and pictures that they want, when they want them, and in a form they can readily use. Author Carole Howard suggests, “Be a reporter’s reporter. When asked for information, do not hesitate to ask enough questions so you have a full understanding of the story the reporter is working on.”80 Journalists work with fixed and sometimes tight deadlines. Practitioners who hope to place stories in the news media must know and adhere to media lead times. Again, Howard advises: Learn the regular and late-breaking deadlines of all the media that normally cover your organization. A reporter’s life is controlled by very short deadlines, especially in the broadcast and Internet media, and you must meet the reporter’s deadline or your information is useless.81 Journalists also count on and cooperate with the practitioner who willingly responds to a midnight call for a photo and biographical sketch of an executive who just died. News, a highly perishable commodity, occurs around the clock, as do news deadlines in the global media environment. Therefore, some practitioners are on call around the clock. Howard suggests keeping key materials at home, for as Dalton points out, “News doesn’t wait—for anyone or anything.” Technology has changed the process for giving service (see Exhibit 10.3). 3. Do not beg or whine. Nothing irritates journalists and their editors and news directors more than the practitioner who begs to have stories used or complains about story treatment. Journalists have finely developed senses of journalistic objectivity and news value. If information is not sufficiently newsworthy on its own merits to attract their interest, no amount of begging and whining can change the quality of that information. Some practitioners (or their interns!) call journalists to ask, “Did you receive my release?” One online editor succinctly states how most journalists react to such follow-up calls: “Assume that whatever it was you sent, we got it. If you don’t hear back from us, we’re not interested.”82 Nothing, however, is more offensive to a journalist than a practitioner who tries to pressure the editorial staff to use a story, change a story treatment, or kill a story by holding hostage the organization’s advertising business. That kind of pressure does not work when up against journalistic integrity and will surely lead to resentment or to an immediate public response. 4. Do not ask for “kills.” Practitioners have no right to ask journalists or editors to suppress or kill a story. It seldom works, is unprofessional, and brings only ill will. To journalists, this is a crude insult and an abuse of the First Amendment. It is asking journalists to betray their public trust. The best way to keep unfavorable stories out of the press is to prevent situations that produce such stories. At the same time, there are occasions when it is perfectly legitimate to request a delay in publication or to explain to the media any part of the story that might be damaging to the public interest. For example, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security do not release, or may legitimately request media to delay releasing, information potentially compromising to military operations or threatening to public safety. Then again, in the latter cases, some will remind us of what California U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson said in 1917: “The first casualty when war comes is truth.”83 That is why public relations specialists in those organizations establish and maintain relationships of trust with their media counterparts. (See Chapter 16 on government and politics, and Chapter 17 on military public affairs.) 5. Do not flood the media. Study and experience teach the boundaries of newsworthiness, and common sense dictates respect for them. If a financial editor receives information appropriate for the sports or real estate editor, the financial editor loses respect for the practitioner who engages in blanketing the media with email blast releases. The best advice includes the following: (1) stick to what journalists will consider news, (2) keep media email lists current, and (3) send to only one—the most appropriate—journalist at each news medium. An avalanche of public relations materials reaches newsrooms around the globe. Not all of it will get through the careful scrutiny of media gatekeepers, and they quickly learn which sources provide information with real news value. Working with the Media The late former CBS news reporter and long-time counselor Chester Burger said the press “is often unfair, unreasonable, and simply wrong. But even if it isn’t our friend, it is the best friend the nation has, and we should be thankful for it.”84 Based on notions of a free and independent Carol Perruso Journalism Librarian California State University, Long Beach* Finding experts for reporters to interview used to be one of the main jobs of news librarians/researchers. Now, journalists say, the experts find them. Richard A. Serrano, a reporter in the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times, tracked the changes he has seen over the last several years: Ten years ago, when you had to find an expert, “it took forever to go from person to person,” waiting for call backs. “Then about five to seven years ago, law firms, think tanks, research groups and accounting firms started hiring people to watch for breaking news.” When a story broke, they would do a blast email to reporters, “I understand you are writing about AT&T . . . ” telling reporters about an expert they might want to interview. “It was a kind of telemarketing. “Then about two years ago, many of these organizations decided they didn’t get enough bang for the buck with this approach.” Instead, when a story broke, “a PR person would quickly interview the expert and email reporters transcripts of the interviews, four or five grafts, often with the best quotes in boldface. At first we thought that this was great. Then we decided, whoa, we don’t know enough about the expert. Maybe it was a lawyer who had lost most of his cases.” Serrano described one law professor who sent him emails every time something legal happened. “One time I called him, and he didn’t really know anything.” Then nonprofit organizations started adapting the strategy. These were organizations known to reporters to be credible. For example, Serrano said, with stories about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, reporters would want to interview the top people at organizations such as the ACLU or Human Rights Watch, but these nonprofits didn’t have time for all of the interviews. So, he said, they would do an interview internally and send reporters a transcript. More recently, politicians started using this strategy, Serrano added. When the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives resigned in August, “I started getting emails from senators with quotes. It was very easy for me to pick one or two. What used to take me a half hour, could be done in ten minutes. Everybody gets the same quotes. It’s an instant news release. It’s very, very beneficial, especially on a fast moving story when you want to get something on the Web right away.” The same quote will frequently then appear on the politician’s website, according to Serrano. Perruso formerly was President, LATimes.com, Los Angeles Times. Used with permission. Exhibit 10.3 Journalists Used to Find Sources, Now Sources Find Journalists Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 255 press, as well as principles of sound public relations practice, seasoned practitioners offer the following guidelines for working with the media: 1. Talk from the viewpoint of the public’s interest, not the organization’s. The soft drink bottler who launches a campaign to collect and recycle bottles can frankly admit that it does not want to irritate the public by having its product litter the landscape. 2. Make the news easy to read and use. Use a short, punchy headline to attract attention and give potential users an indication of the topic. Do not use jargon, unfamiliar acronyms, or technical terms. Personal pronouns, names, and quotations make your copy easier to read and more interesting. Put the name, email address, and phone number of the news source and contact at the top of releases. 3. If you do not want some statement quoted, do not make it. Spokespersons should avoid talking “off the record,” because many bloggers and other new media sources have no formal journalism training and do not know the traditional “rules.” Some news organizations forbid reporters to accept such information. Moreover, it is absolutely too late to qualify something as off the record after you make a statement to a reporter. 4. State the most important fact at the beginning. A manager’s logical presentation may first list the facts that led to a decision, but news reporters want the decision. The first-level response to a reporter’s question is a short summary of your position or newsworthy announcement. The second-level response includes a concrete example or evidence to back up your first statement. If the reporter persists, return to the first-level summary statement. 5. Do not argue with a reporter or lose your cool. Understand that journalists seek an interesting story and will go to great lengths to get the story. To paraphrase an old public relations maxim, do not argue with people who buy printers ink by the barrel or with people who are influential bloggers; these people have the final say. 6. If a question contains offensive language or simply words you do not like, do not repeat them even to deny them. Along the lines of having the final say, reporters also can select quotes, portions of quotes, or even single words for the final story. Reporters often use the gambit of putting words into subjects’ mouths, such as, “Do you mean. . .?” or “Is what you are really saying . . .?” 7. If the reporter asks a direct question, give an equally direct answer. If the appropriate answer is “yes” or “no,” give the correct response and say no more. Some reporters will remain silent after getting an answer in hopes that the subject will volunteer more information. Do not respond to the pressure to say something more. The tougher the question, the shorter the answer should be. Assume that the camera is on at all times; otherwise the unguarded comment will be the sound bite on the evening news! 8. If spokespersons do not know the answer to a question, they should simply say, “I don’t know, but I’ll get the answer for you.” This is a commitment to follow through by providing the information as quickly as possible. Better yet, prepare for the interview by anticipating what questions will be asked, by developing succinct answers, and by rehearsing with someone playing the role of the reporter. 9. Tell the truth, even if it hurts. Treat bad news as you would any other story: Prepare as if it were good news and take it to the media. Not only does that mean that you will keep some control over the story and how it is covered, but it also means that you are not on the defensive, making yourself vulnerable to charges of trying to hide the facts and being exposed by the media. This may be the most difficult position to sell to those in top management, who often see the practitioner’s job as keeping bad news out of the media. 10. Do not call a news conference unless you have what reporters consider news. When is a news conference justified? Seldom. In fact, call a news conference only when there is no other means to get an important breaking story to the media in a timely fashion. The determining factor is the need to give reporters an opportunity to ask questions and pursue the story rather than simply issuing a statement or making an announcement (see Figure 10.3). Complex matters that require backgrounding and detailed explanation, such as a technological breakthrough, may justify a news conference. If you do call a news conference, follow the suggestions outlined in steps 1 through 9.85 Working with International Media When working with news media from other countries, public relations practitioners must not only follow the same basic principles discussed in this chapter but also keep in mind linguistic, cultural, and political differences. William Hachten categorized media systems around the world into five types:86 1. Authoritarian. The media are subordinate to the state, which controls the press and restricts what they can cover. Examples of this would be the media systems in many of the Middle East autocracies that were deposed by protesting citizens. 2. Communist. The state controls the media and requires it to espouse and promote Marxist ideals and philosophy. Media in Cuba and China are examples of this type of system. 3. Revolutionary. This media system often exists clandestinely in conjuction with authoritarian or communist media systems. Characterized by its effort to spread information suppressed by the state media, the revolutionary media system today is often Internet based, such as websites in Iran, China, and Singapore that get shut down for disseminating information not authorized by the government. 4. Western. Despite its name, this media system can be found in any country where the news media are free to report on whatever they wish, as long as they balance that right with their social responsibility, for example, by not reporting inaccurate or misleading information. 5. Developmental. Found in so-called “developing” countries, this media system is relatively free, as long as it supports national goals toward development. One example is the media system in India, where news channels are unrestricted, while social programming encourages such government initiatives as the elimination of the traditional caste system. Hachten’s classification is useful in reminding public relations practitioners that they cannot conduct media relations abroad the way they do at home. Other tips include being careful of cultural differences and sensitive issues (e.g., some Chinese media resist company news Figure 10.3 Pentagon Press Conference Courtesy Department of Defense. Photo by R. D. Ward. Chapter 10 • External Media and Media Relations 257 releases with boilerplate statements about corporate social responsibility); translating all documents into appropriate languages (e.g., mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan require three distinct types of Chinese characters); refraining from potentially insulting language (e.g., saying your U.S.-made product is “the best,” when the country you are targeting produces something similar); and including local information and sources whenever possible.87 These suggestions can help practitioners build and maintain good relations with journalists in the news media, both at home and around the world. Because of the crucial gatekeeper role played by reporters and editors in print, broadcast, and online media, practitioners have little choice but to earn and keep the respect of journalists. At the same time, although the public has a right to public information, there are limits. Some information is confidential, and some information cannot be disclosed because of individual privacy or because of the proprietary nature of the information in a competitive business environment. Also, sometimes, news may be “embargoed,” meaning that information is made available to credentialed journalists with the understanding that they will not share it with a wider audience until given permission to do so. An example of why news might be embargoed occurred when an Australian magazine “broke the embargo”—without authorization—about Britain’s Prince Harry serving with his British Army unit in Afghanistan. When the news broke, Prince Harry was recalled home amid concerns for his safety and that of his military unit. Whether the news media were right to honor the embargo, denying people the right to know the prince was serving in Afghanistan, was the subject of subsequent debate among journalists.88 Forthe public relations practitioner, knowing howto keep control ofthe agendawhen ­dealing with journalists is part of the media training required for all those acting as spokespersons and managers of media relations. In the final analysis, however, the practitioner–journalist relationship is an adversarial relationship. After being accused of doing something immoral by teaching people how to deal with the press, former media consultant Roger Ailes told a journalism seminar: We always advise our clients to tell the truth. But the thing that disturbs me most is that you are here in journalism school learning how to ask the questions, yet you would deny a person the right to learn how to answer those questions.89 Part of the motivation for giving managers media training is that the top executives in many organizations are public figures without training or experience in dealing with this aspect of their public life. CEOs are obliged to deal with the media and to face the public when their organizations make important decisions or are involved in crises that have impact beyond the organization. This obligation applies equally to leaders in corporations, nonprofit agencies, health and health care organizations, educational institutions, government, and all other organizations concerned about their relationships with publics. Because a free press plays a central role in a free society, this is the era of the media savvy top executive. Media training designed to help executives deal directly with the press is a responsibility of the public relations department and an essential investment in building and maintaining good media relations, whether with traditional or new media outlets.