To a certain extent, I can't help agreeing with the editorial team at the Online Citizen. Passions can easily be raised by misconceptions and the phrase "Responsible" journalism should not be taken as a cheap phrase invented by the Singapore government. Journalist do have a responsibility of sorts to ensure that their reports are factually accurate. A false report or more often inaccurate reporting can have human consequences. With the exception of Datuk Vinod Shekar, who seems to revel in every controversy thrown at him, most of us worry about our reputations and how damaged reputations can ruin our livelihoods - hence PR consultants get hired.
I also believe that PR consultants also have a duty to ensure that there is accurate reporting. During the Zim Trial in July, my opposite number and I actually became friends and would make sure that the journalist covering the trial got to speak to both sides. Like the lawyers in side the court room, we had a job to do but it didn't have to get personal - ie we worked to get a fair story told.
Having said that, I don't think journalist should be held responsible for the reactions of their readers and if journalist cannot be held responsible for the reaction of their readers, shouldn't the same be more so of blogs and writers?
Let's differentiate between two things here. In every medium there is a news report of an event and then there are opinions. News reports should be factual and as far as possible "Bias-Free." Take court reporting as an example - you MUST have both sides of the story. The job my opposite number and I had at the Zim trial was actually easy - we made sure the press turned up (well I did, I worked for the plaintiffs and press coverage was in my favour), stayed interested and got to hear from both sides. Manipulating news is done subtly.
Opinion pieces are a different matter. A writer of an opinion piece has no obligation to be "fair" to everyone. For example, if I like banana splits, you can't say I'm wrong to write that in an opinion piece on banana splits and you cannot actually hurt me if I said that banana splits are nicer than apple pie.
The glory of being a writer of opinion pieces is getting people to respond. Not all responses are pleasant. Freedom of Speech often invites people to spew a load of trash at you whenever they feel like it. This is especially true on the internet, where as everyone else seems to write under a pseudonym. I rather not, if I have something to say, I should be able to stand by it. I have, much to the horror of the other half, I've taken on groups of people that one would imagine would be suicidal for me to taken on.
Even negative responses are worth responding to. A few days ago, a "pro-lifer" in the US responded to an article I wrote on a website (and have since forgotten about) accusing me of being a supporter of murder (article was about abortion). I was, in his words, "Spewing propaganda and lies." I actually responded to him. Why risk the wrath of "fanatics" one might ask? Being called things like a liar and yes, I've been called an "Anti-Semite," are not pleasant but it shows that you have hit a raw nerve. You've done your job as a writer.
As a blogger, I write because I have an opinion that I want to express. I don't seek to incite hatred and I do take a certain risk that people will be offended. Sometimes I want certain people to be offended. Note that there is a difference between being offensive and doing damage. My poor better half has had to contend with friends of hers that I've offended. The people I've offended have always been welcome to respond to what I write - freedom of speech means you have to accept challenges to your views no matter how robust and if you accept people challenging you, you find that they become more accommodating. The "pro-lifer" was actually quite civil and not the "fanatic" I imagined he would be.
For me, I get the question - "How does a PR consultant blog?" The instinct of a blogger is to say it as it is and not be afraid of causing offense. The PR consultant by contrast seeks to minimise offence. One of the rules for people like me is supposed to be don't write things that will upset your clients.
There is an easy way to get around this. Work with clients you believe in. David Ogilvy said,"How can you advertise a client if you don't believe in their product enough to use it yourself?" My mother was horrified when I admitted that part of the reason I went for lasik was because Alcon is my client. Point being - I cannot sell the virtues of a product I don't believe in.
The point here is simple. When you work with a client you believe in, you are more likely to blog in a way that promotes your client. With few exceptions, I actually like the people I've worked with and that makes you more inclined to say nice things about them.
PR consultants also need to tell clients that PR works only with credible mediums. What defines a credible medium. The common answer is a credible medium looks at things critically - ie one that does not "Kiss Ass" to its paymasters. One of Microsoft's better PR moves in recent years was to hire Robert Scoble, a blogger, whom the Economist dubbed, "The Serial Blogger." Mr Scoble's blog engages "netizens" into discussions about Microsoft products. He is at times critical of the company's products and the company tolerates this. Why? That's because his criticisms of Microsoft make him "credible" in the eyes of the people who read the reviews and this in turn brings in more sales for Microsoft. Furthermore, the internet allows one to receive complaints, which are then used for feedback.
Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. However, not everyone can articulate their opinions and not everyone can sway opinions. It's always best to encourage those who can do the swaying to do more of it.
Geen opmerkingen
Een reactie posten