The Pew Research Center produces “The State of the News Media” each year, a study on the trends shaping journalism.
Given the synergistic, and yes, antagonistic relationship between PR and journalism, the report offers relevant fodder for any communicator.
Here’s most of the report’s overview interpreted through a PR lens.
Overview From The State of the Media 2013
In 2012, a continued erosion of news reporting resources converged with growing opportunities for those in politics, government agencies, companies and others to take their messages directly to the public.
Give Pew credit for recognizing that owned media is muscling into journalistic turf.
But to say there are growing opportunities for organizations “to take their messages directly to the public” sells the concept short. If only that were the case, the impact on publications would be minimal. Crafting pristine messages hardly represents a threat to media properties.
Unfortunately for the fourth estate, organizations ranging from the White House to IBM to Luigi’s Pizzeria – hey, a fella can dream – are developing journalistic-grade content that transcends old-school messages.
Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since its peak in 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007 to 2012. Across the three cable channels, coverage of live events during the day, which often require a crew and correspondent, fell 30% from 2007 to 2012 while interview segments, which tend to take fewer resources and can be scheduled in advance, were up 31%. Time magazine, the only major print news weekly left standing, cut roughly 5% of its staff in early 2013 as a part of broader company layoffs. And in African-American news media, the Chicago Defender has winnowed its editorial staff to just four while The Afro cut back the number of pages in its papers from 28-32 in 2008 to 16-20 in 2012.
A short-attention-span society directly impacts the economics of the journalism business.
A growing list of media outlets, such as Forbes magazine, use technology by a company called Narrative Science to produce content by way of algorithm, no human reporting necessary. And some of the newer nonprofit entrants into the industry, such as the Chicago News Cooperative, have, after launching with much fanfare, shut their doors.
The media recognizes the importance of experimentation.
This adds up to a news industry that is more undermanned and unprepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands. And findings from our new public opinion survey released in this report reveal that the public is taking notice. Nearly one-third of the respondents (31%) have deserted a news outlet because it no longer provides the news and information they had grown accustomed to.
Mini case study on the concept of cause and effect.
At the same time, newsmakers and others with information they want to put into the public arena have become more adept at using digital technology and social media to do so on their own, without any filter by the traditional media. They are also seeing more success in getting their message into the traditional media narrative.
I detect denial.
Can you imagine? Companies using social media and digital technology to bypass journalists and communicate directly to their audiences? What’s next? Co-ed dorms?
Again Pew makes it sound like a black-and-white issue – companies communicate messages, and journalists write stories.
Nothing could be further from reality.
So far, this trend has emerged most clearly in the political sphere, particularly with the biggest story of 2012—the presidential election. A Pew Research Center analysis revealed that campaign reporters were acting primarily as megaphones, rather than as investigators, of the assertions put forward by the candidates and other political partisans. That meant more direct relaying of assertions made by the campaigns and less reporting by journalists to interpret and contextualize them.
I don’t think so. While Team Obama serves as the poster child for owned media, it’s happening everywhere (see Luigi’s Pizzeria).
This is summarized in our special video report on our Election Research, only about a quarter of statements in the media about the character and records of the presidential candidates originated with journalists in the 2012 race, while twice that many came from political partisans. That is a reversal from a dozen years earlier when half the statements originated with journalists and a third came from partisans. The campaigns also found more ways than ever to connect directly with citizens.
What can I say. People like to talk. The Internet provides the perfect soapbox to tap this aspect of human nature.
There are signs of this trend that carry beyond the political realm, as more and more entities seek, by various means, to fill the void left by overstretched editorial resources. Business leaders in Detroit, MI, for example, have created an organization to serve as a kind of tour guide to journalists with the goal of injecting more favorable portrayals of the city into media coverage. The government of Malaysia was recently discovered to have bankrolled propaganda that appeared in several major U.S. outlets under columnists’ bylines. A number of news organizations, including The Associated Press, recently carried a fake press release about Google that came from a PR distribution site that promises clients it will reach “top media outlets.” And recently, journalist David Cay Johnston in writing about a pitch from one corporate marketer that included a “vacation reward” for running his stories, remarked, “Journalists get lots of pitches like this these days, which is partly a reflection of how the number of journalists has shriveled while the number of publicists has grown.”
Welcome to the real world.
Bad PR is out there the same way that bad journalism exists.
To correlate a pay-for-play pitch to the shrinking pool of journalists “bravely” standing up to the growing battalions of PR professionals is misplaced (to be kind).
Indeed, an analysis of Census Bureau data by Robert McChesney and John Nichols found the ratio of public relations workers to journalists grew from 1.2 to 1 in 1980 to 3.6 to 1 in 2008—and the gap has likely only widened since.
In circumventing the media altogether, one company, Contently, connects thousands of journalists, many of them ex-print reporters, with commercial brands to help them produce their own content, including brand-oriented magazines. In early March, Fortune took that step, launching a program for advertisers called Fortune TOC—Trusted Original Content—in which Fortune writers, for a fee, create original Fortune-branded editorial content for marketers to distribute exclusively on their own platforms.
Efforts by political and corporate entities to get their messages into news coverage are nothing new. What is different now—adding up the data and industry developments—is that news organizations are less equipped to question what is coming to them or to uncover the stories themselves, and interest groups are better equipped and have more technological tools than ever.
There’s that M word again, messages.
Companies aren’t hiring journalists to write messages.
It’s about creating compelling narratives that entertain or inform or both.
While traditional newsrooms have shrunk, however, there are other new players producing content that could advance citizens’ knowledge about public issues. They are covering subject areas that would have once been covered more regularly and deeply by beat reporters at traditional news outlets—areas such as health, science and education. The Kaiser Family Foundation was an early entrant with Kaiser Health News. Now others, such as Insidescience.org, supported by the American Institute of Physics and others, and the Food and Environment Reporting Network with funding from nonprofit foundations are beginning to emerge. In the last year, more news outlets have begun to carry this content with direct attribution to the source. The Washington Post, for example, regularly carries articles bylined by Kaiser Health News and NBC.com runs Insidescience.org stories with a lead-in identifying the source.
For whatever reason, Pew seems to size up the work from these commercial enterprises as less offensive because they’ve been vetted by Brother J.
For news organizations, distinguishing between high-quality information of public value and agenda-driven news has become an increasingly complicated task, made no easier in an era of economic churn.
I don’t think so.
All a news organization needs to do is ask a simple question: Where does the information come from? The source of the information determines the agenda.
To borrow from the world of cinema, “It’s complicated.”
So it is with what’s transpiring across the broad media landscape.
Journalists pitching their stories over Twitter for precious incremental clicks.
PR people striving to build drama into stories that will attract readers.
If Pew researchers think the crafting of pristine messages serves as the dividing line between journalism and PR, they might want to revisit their data.