The Rise of the “Journo-Relations” Industry
If social media kills journalism and newspapers as we know them (i.e. the death threats announced by the New York Times Co. regarding the Boston Globe), what will take their place? According to BusinessWeek MediaCentric columnist Jon Fine, a potential replacement already exists — the “Journalist-Consultant.”
Fine’s analysis is, well, fine: the Web provides organizations with direct consumer access, which displaces journalism’s centrality as a content provider. As a result, journalists are turning to new media to create businesses that utilize their skills, essentially transforming into public relations practitioners (though I imagine the label would cause many of them to visibly shudder).
The challenge, Fine rightly addresses, is that at Abrams Research (a consulting firm founded by former MSNBC anchor Dan Abrams), touts its access, “to active journalists and bloggers.” One can only imagine the ethical firestorm this kind of “consulting” might ignite.
Examing the Abrams Web site, one sees clear examples of the blurry line Fine identifies. The site claims that “Abrams Research can bring together top financial journalists to advise that business [financial services] on how to best convey its message.” To help a video game distributor, Abrams claims it “can reach out to the most influential industry bloggers and present an overview of their opinions on a particular marketing message.”
Rather than focus on the ethical dilemmas, which Fine outlines, I would rather think through the rise of the “Journo-Relations” industry and what it might mean for future communicators. I believe that we are already experiencing this blurring of lines between journalist and communicator via blogs and tweets. The long-range consequences are even more cloudy.
The notion of who a person represents and which “hat” they wear at a given time will take on greater importance as bloggers, tweeters, and others extend themselves across various platforms. For example, when am I a company-paid communicator or simply advocating for myself (the idea of “brand you“)? How do the lines blur when one posts a link to a company blog or product blog to a personal social media site, such as Facebook or LinkedIn?
Most public relations experts I have discussed this idea with agree that they do not want their hard news coming from “Journo-Relations” practitioners. They lament the decline of independent news organizations. Most journalists, obviously, feel the same way. The disappearance of newspapers and magazines puts them out of work.
The biggest problems I see as a result of the rise of “Journo-Relations” is that people, in general, are not trained in critical thinking to the degree necessary to distinguish between journalistic content and non-journalistic content, particularly if it is written and/or taped to look like journalism. We only need to look at the recent VNR problems and the challenge of “advertorials” to see how quickly paid fact becomes real fact.
Rather than think critically, most people are urged to find a single correct answer or fall back on their “gut” instinct (usually a conglomeration of ideas, indoctrinations, feelings, and emotions they carry). For example, many people look at poll results at face value, not questioning who paid for the content, the survey size, or methodology. Given the large stakes at hand in poll results, from voting to when and where a company decides to run an ad, one would expect that voters/consumers, etc. would use a more critical eye. My experience discussing these issues with hundreds of college students each year have proved otherwise.
From a “Journo-Relations” perspective, we face a future (and many would argue current state) where there are few or no gatekeepers. In this environment, is anyone really willing to base what is or is not appropriate for one to write about on a person’s individual ethical code?
In the Abrams Research case, for example, who will draw the line between “compensated experts” and active journalists? In an increasingly decentralized media world, no central body exists to regulate journalists or communicators that choose to ignore traditional ethical lines.
The demand for content is not slowing, though the delivery channels are changing. Journalism and communications are adapting to this new reality. Will the public keep pace, or perhaps even more important, do they care?
April 7th, 2009 at 09:19
Hi Bob,
Very timely post. I recently gave a presentation to journalism students at GWU, and we dived into a lengthy discussion about the future of journalism and public relations. The professor asked me this very question: do you see the intermediary disappearing as more people go online to get news content?
My answer is that while I hope this doesn’t happen, we’re already seeing this shift as companies engage directly with consumers on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Currently, there is a balance between using journalists as the middle-man and communicating directly with target audiences. However, as newspapers continue to take a beating, I think we will see a shift to this “journo-relations” concept.
Your last sentence is what nails it, though. Will people even care about - or notice- the change, and more importantly, what will we, as communications professionals, do to ease the transition and make people care?
April 12th, 2009 at 11:45
I find this to be a very interesting topic. I’ve been participating in #journchat every Monday night on Twitter, a chat hosted by Sarah Evans that brings together journalists, bloggers and PR people.
Over the past few weeks, the conversation is largely about how the channels for delivering the message are changing, and how will journalism survive, etc. The general tone of the conversation is one of excitement for the new ways that PR professionals can get their word out, and one of apprehension that the use of these channels will kill journalism as we know it.
Personally, I’m excited to see where it goes. As a student about to graduate into the industry, yes, having the traditional PR background is absolutely required. But, being well-versed in the new channels and new way of delivering messages is essential as well. At Weber Shandwick Chicago, where I just got brought on-board, they are using social media in new ways to interact with their publics, which is in turn, creating better stories for journalists to write. They’ve actually created a department that deals with this exclusively, and are creating the same department in their LA office.
I think the new channels for media are inevitable. We know that the technologies of social media can change overnight. The story is still the most important part. Why do people (clients) matter? How do we tell their story? If PR people continue to stay grounded to that concept, we should be fine.
As far as the journalists being put out of work, I think the journalists that embrace the change and seek out opportunities to spread their message through these new channels are the ones that will keep journalism alive. They will be the ones who will still have jobs when the old-school journalists who resist change are let go.
Are the lines between real news and blogger news blurring? Yes, they have been for quite some time. But the real question, I think, is whether or not the blurring is a bad thing. If we prepare ourselves for what is coming, or ::gasp:: think outside the box and think ahead, we should have no fear for what the future brings to journalism and public relations.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:17
Great question.
Obviously, people are starting to trust bloggers as sources of information. Some very vocal people prefer it this way, and like to think the bloggers are an ‘everyman’ just like them, and are therefore more trustworthy sources of information. As more people join this occupation, more spammers and hacks will take advantage of this trust. Eventually, people will get angry.
I think it’ll get pretty bad for awhile. Then, like in all things, I believe there will be a backlash and people will seek out trustworthy sources once again.
I’d like to think that more nonprofits will rise in the journalism field. I think (perhaps too optimistically) that there are people that love journalism simply because they like to investigate and inform. These are the people that will continue to do so, despite all obstacles.
April 20th, 2009 at 19:38
Thanks for the insightful comments. I’m grateful to hear from three such fantastic young professionals (and USF grads). You all will be on the frontlines of this transformation for years to come, which is good for us all.
My fear is that the public simply doesn’t care (or care to distinguish between a credible source and a crackpot). As people have grown more comfortable with Wikipedia, for example, the questions about the site’s authors have dwindled. It is a slippery slope to further blurring between journalism and communications.
If we look at the evening TV news, perhaps we get a glimpse of what might play out. The national news broadcasts used to be filled with hard news and in-depth analysis. We all know how it has slid downhill from there. On one hand, the news shows have been dumbed down, but on the other, this is what people want.
Should we stand in the way if the public determines that it wants its “news” in 140-character drips?