No PR please, we're independent

It's interesting to observe how some media denigrate the PR industry and claim they are not influenced by it, while at the same time make use of public relations output.

They like to infer to their readers and anyone else who will listen that they are the only true source of credible information and commentary.

Do journalists really lack confidence in their own integrity, or have they begun to be influenced by the media's own spin?

An example: I once pitched a story to a young reporter who said she was interested in the issue but would not cover it because it was "too commercial".

That led to a discussion about whether material should be published which furthered the interests of individuals or organisations seeking to make money. I suggested if that was to be the case, business publications and the business pages of daily papers would have little to publish.

I asked whether the fact the story served commercial interests made it of any less interest to her readers. She evaded the question and responded with arguments about how journalism had to be seen to be free of influence from the "dark arts" of PR.

Her reply prompted another question: Was the issue not worth covering because of its commercial nature, or because I was trying to influence her to do it?

What difficulties do such attitudes pose for PR practitioners and for business people who just want to get their message across? I was pondering this recently when an example of practical public relations and one of media spin arrived in the same package:

A weekly business paper sent me a free copy inside a wrapper inviting me to subscribe. The promotion promised incisive, unbiased and unfettered reporting — "real news honed from investigative journalism, not regurgitated from PR handouts".

No PR in this paper. No Sir.

But as I began reading, I soon found evidence of my colleagues' work.

One example was an article under the by-line of the chief executive of one of New Zealand's largest companies.

It claimed removing the company's last remaining area of monopoly would be a "wrong move for New Zealand" because it had not worked elsewhere and there was already sufficient competition.

It was well-written and closely-reasoned, quoting local and international examples to substantiate the argument. I found it interesting and look forward to reading similarly-presented counter-arguments from opposing commercial interests.

It wasn't a PR handout, but it was PR.

The managing editor of that publication, well-known for his adversarial stance towards public relations, would almost certainly not see the contributed think-piece as PR.

That irony is one of the keys to unlocking the dilemma for all concerned — media people who want to maintain editorial integrity, and businesses which want to get their message across.

If businesses define their approach to public relations by the same narrow "PR handout" gauge, their efforts are bound to be treated with suspicion.

On the other hand, if a business issue reads like a good story and is presented in a way that looks like a good story, then it probably is.

Some journalists might then recover sufficient confidence in their integrity to accept that stories from commercial sources can be of potential interest to readers, listeners and viewers.