Special guest post by James Flanigan. James Flanigan is a business columnist for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and other publications and has covered national and international business and economics for 46 years. James’ blog and information about his current book can by found at: http://jamesflanigan.com/.

For almost half a century, I’ve experienced public relations from the other side of the table, as a business journalist. So I’m going to tell a few stories, parables if you will, with points about PR in each one.

I’ll begin with a public relations man who did his job well and helped me at the same time. I broke in as a business reporter with the New York Herald Tribune, assigned to cover the oil, chemical, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries. Jack Gillespie was public relations for Socony Mobil, as the company was then called, and he figured it would be good if a reporter covering the industry also understood it. So he set up interviews not with top executives but with working oil men who were on temporary assignment in Mobil’s New York offices. Typically, a crusty fellow, uncomfortable behind a desk, would explain the economics of exploration, say, or how natural gas occurs along with oil and can be recovered.

Gillespie didn’t gild the lily; there was seldom a direct connection to a story about Mobil, but there was an indirect one in that industry stories were at least knowledgeable. In any event, no story comes from a single source and critical comment is always available–in those days it was from upstarts like Occidental Petroleum or ENI, the Italian state oil company, which were shaking up the solid front of the major oil corporations.      A contrast is a story about British Petroleum, which has run into horrendous public relations trouble currently. In the late 1990s, after BP had acquired Amoco and was preparing to buy Arco, I interviewed its chief executive John Browne, later Lord Browne. Browne, to be sure, had intelligent perspective about the industry, but he was already preaching the company’s “beyond petroleum” environmental message.  I wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times after that interview but in subsequent meetings it seemed to a skeptical reporter that image building grew into hype. I didn’t write and declined later offers of interviews because reporting is not stenography and interviews, even with CEOs, do not necessarily a story make. The point is that business is a human story and the most important quality a company can convey in any PR campaign is integrity.

So, I’ll tell one more story about an executive and the late, great business editor James W. Michaels of Forbes Magazine. Each year at Forbes, staff writers had to contact CEOs to compile information for the Jan. 1 industrial rankings. It was tedious work, often to get a boilerplate quote from the CEO. But I called Nathan Cummings, the founder of Consolidated Foods (later Sara Lee Corp.) and he was delightful and informative about the industry and the company. So I asked Michaels why if this guy is so informative, are others dull and evasive? And Jim explained: “Nate owns the company” (which was nonetheless public). “The other people are just hired hands, afraid if they say something in Forbes, they’ll lose their job or be in hot water at the country club.” In PR terms, that tells you not only what you want in a client but what to understand about editors.

Treasure the journalists, for as former WSJ.com reporter Jason Fry recently commentated, digital media may very well be the end of  journalism as we know it today.

Whereas that may sound somewhat dramatic, you have only to look at the digital media site that Fry mentions, Demand Media, as well as other similar ones like Associated Content or AOL’s Seed — the so called “content mills” or “content farms” — so nicknamed for the large volume of content that they churn out, based on a set of algorithms of popular search queries.

On such sites, topics are usually selected by low-paid freelancers who, because the economics of these sites’ business model that don’t allow time for several rounds of edits, fact-checking or further investigative reporting, write in a one-draft style, written with the intent to lure, as well as satisfy advertisers.

And now comes another entry in this arena, Yahoo’s new blog dubbed The Upshot.  In an interview with The New York Times, James A. Pitaro, vice president of Yahoo Media, said that their newly launched news blog, will create content “in response to audience insight” aggregated from Yahoo search and popular search queries, to guide its reporting and writing on national affairs, politics and the media.

Where is the validity of the news if  subjects are only selected to attract eyeballs and sell ads?

In contrast, journalism, to date, has been about not just informing readers and listeners, but also about illuminating something for readers, giving them a perspective that might trigger new thoughts and opinions.  I am speaking about the professional journalist — the ones who are passionate in the pursuit of a story who, by the very nature of their profession, understand how to research a story, are relentless in their hunt for facts and substance and who are able to organize their thoughts in a way that actual “tells” the story in a comprehensible way.

Demand Media has issued strong protest about being called a “content farm” and bristles at criticism of their editorial content.

Maybe both sides deserve consideration.   Maybe the word that is new and arbitrary here is “content,” which gets confused with news, but is not news.  And the “farm” or “mill” parts refer to mass content, or quantity versus “investigating reporting” quality.  Maybe digital media is about advertorials without a new labeling system.

So, for now, “content mill or farm” may fit, until new terms are found and adopted to separate digital media from journalism as we know it.

Look, advertising has always been the life blood of most news generating publishers, online or not, but the traditional wall erected to separate editorial and advertising has got to keep standing to allow for independent reporting.

But in light of digital media sites being so hot and rich, (Demand Media generated more than $200 million in revenue in 2009, and is now planning an initial public offering) that wall may very well come “a-tumbling down.”

It’s downright unthinkable and puzzling that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, of all people, wouldn’t think through potential consequences before taking action.  Unless, of course, he has a different agenda…

In the recent profile published by the magazine, titled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal disparaged administration officials, mocking Vice President Joseph Biden and criticizing special envoy for Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and U.S. Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, with whom McChrystal is supposed to carry out U.S. policy, potentially fracturing the unified front that Obama has sought to build for the war and the international coalition.

Oops…

Was this blatant naïveté on the part of McChrystal to simply speak off the cuff and blast the administration or just flawed judgment?  Apparently McChrystal, who spent much of his military career in the world of special operations, didn’t have as much experience dealing with the media, as did other top commanders, such as Gen. David H. Petraeus.  Still, he had “handlers” –civilian press aides assigned to him by the US military.

According to a report in The Washington Post, his now-resigned civilian press aide, Duncan Boothby said that, “he was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff, so that Hastings could write the profile.”  Was Boothby aware of the bent that the story was to take?  Did he research the magazine and the reporter? Did he take steps to veer the story in such a way as to forestall any potential damaging results from the interview?  Was the reporter given too much access to McChrystal and his “anonymous” aides, with too little control? Did Boothby media train McChrystal at all?  Were McChrystal and his aides not aware of the administration’s policy that military officers must respect civilian leadership and keep their advice and views private?

Something doesn’t make sense…

It gets more dumbfounding.  Both Boothby and McChrystal fact-checked the story.  What did they read and approve? Did McChrystal intentionally speak out against the administration and choose a popular publication as a platform in which to vent?  If so, poor judgment, that triggered a public spectacle (or circus) with consequences that were easily predictable – a very public firing — reminiscent of the firing of General Douglas MacArthur, who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II and who was fired for insubordination by President Truman.

McChrystal issued an apology yesterday saying that,  “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.” How about that old adage, “think before you speak? “

Poor judgment, indeed.  Sometimes — “It is all a matter of judgment”

In recent news, there were updates on three of my blog topics of the last six months that caused me to have three “feel-good” moments.  And so, I thought I would share them, in descending order, with the most recent one first.

On April 8, 2010, writing in my blog headlined, “The Added Costs Of Flying,” I took exception with Spirit Airlines’ plan to start charging passengers for carry-on bags at a $45 per clip. I argued that it would certainly send a better message to the flying public for airlines to have the courage to simply raise their air ticket prices (notwithstanding price war games), rather than have a barrage of fees for once-free amenities that would total a ticket price hike anyway — but without the “smoke and mirrors.”  I voiced concern that this might spur on other airlines to follow suit.

The update: According to an AP article reported by Harry R. Weber, “Six Democratic senators want to hit U.S. airlines with a tax if they charge passengers for their carry-on bags.” The senators hoped that this move would deter other airlines from following Spirit Airlines’ lead. We need to wait as to whether or not this gains traction to win support in Congress, but how wonderful is it for senators to take a stand on behalf of consumers?

On March 11, 2010, I debated in my blog headlined, “A Furious Debate Heats Up As The National Enquirer Reaches For The Gold,” the worthiness of The National Enquirer as a candidate for a Pulitzer Prize, even though it actually qualified for that prestigious prize for having been the first to “out” the John Edwards story all the way through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock.

The update: Happily its entry did not win which, in my opinion, left the prestigious and legendary journalism, untainted.  But history was made anyway, and in a positive way, with the win of a cartoonist for SFGate.com, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, and an investigative journalist at ProPublica who won Pulitzer Prizes for their work.  Although there was a previous wining online entry, Politifact, a database project of the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, this is the first time any online-only publication has won an award for editorial content.

Last November 4, 2009, I wrote in my blog headlined, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Is On The Prowl Again, that the FTC was not amused that credit rating companies were using the mandated free credit reports as a lure for charging a monthly service fee that alert subscribers to important changes in their credit status.  Apparently “free” was not actually free.  Still, although the FTC, at that time, countered with warnings as well as ads about their warnings, they did little else to prevent consumers from getting “bilked” by would-be free sites.

The update: According to a Sacramento Bee report, “To crack down on misleading advertising, the Federal Trade Commission is requiring companies offering “free credit reports” to state clearly that there’s only one authorized site to get them: AnnualCreditReport.com. The new rules, a mostly overlooked piece of last year’s massive credit-card reform bill, are aimed at deceptive radio, TV and online ads that hook consumers with catchy jingles and promises of “free” credit reports.

Good change is in the air…

An FCC investigation that revealed widespread use of sponsored news segments by broadcast stations nationwide, implicated some corporations, PR firms and even the Bush Administration as culprits in distributing packaged new segments as legitimate news, tightening standards and mandates for full disclosure.

->Back to 25 PR Defining Moments

->View the Complete List

Social media as a news reporting function became reality when Twitter became the first to report flight 1549’s crash landing in the Hudson River approximately 10 minutes before traditional media picked up on the story. “Citizen” journalism gained new respect and would play a vital role in the Iranian revolt six months later.

->Back to 25 PR Defining Moments

->View the Complete List

It’s really a matter of “the little engine that could…”

Nobody is surprised that The National Enquirer was the first to “out” the John Edwards story all the way through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock.  That’s what they do best.  It’s their mantra to stake out celebrities and hang around long enough to reap some seamy scoop.  It’s about having a single-minded focus that requires patience and also major resources.

So, incredulous as we all are, the infamous tabloid newspaper is vying for the most prestigious journalism prize — the Pulitzer Prize.  What is even more startling is that the publication actually “qualifies” for the Pulitzer’s category of “breaking news.”  In effect, the tabloid upstaged the venerable publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, all veterans of Pulitzer Prize awards.  It’s really not surprising. While these mainstream publications were putting their resources against following the financial markets, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the legislative news, respectively, the Enquirer was sniffing around for a good scandal that would eventually first take down a presidential candidate and then a potential vice presidential candidate, then being considered by the entering Obama administration.

The debate as to whether or not the tabloid qualifies was taken up by Newsweek, which asked some of its journalists whether fitting into a category of the Pulitzer Prize alone, constitutes eligibility for a prize. There were varying levels of support. Steve Tuttle, senior writer first said, “Hell, yes.” Tony Dokoupil, staff writer said, “A juicy read, yes, but where’s the journalistic value—at least as defined by Pulitzer?” Jessica Bennett, senior writer, said, “Paying for sources is shady. It’s “tabloidy.” It’s not good journalistic practice.”

The key to the debate seems to be money.  Did the tabloid make it clear as to whether they paid for sources? “When you pay people for information, the information itself often becomes distorted,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, though she said she supported its Pulitzer entry.

I am puzzled by the mixed reactions.  I get the sense that mainstream journalists are fencesitting in their willingness to support the tabloid’s entry into their own coveted world of Pulitzer Prize winners.

Look, the story was, in effect,  breaking news and, in particular, news that sells.  (Who of us have not sneaked a peek into one of these tabloids, turning pages to check out the latest gossips while waiting in a supermarket line?)  Don’t get me wrong.  It is not the focus on sex sandals that has me incensed.   The issue is not whether this Edwards breaking news scoop qualifies, but rather whether it should be the only qualifying element for the coveted prize. The Pulitzer Prize has stood for the very embodiment of excellence in journalism – a distinguished example of reporting that has raised the bar since its founding in the latter years of the 19th century by Joseph Pulitzer, and the National Enquirer’s very entry, sullies the distinguished prize.

Obviously, by aiming for the journalistic “gold,” the sensational tabloid is searching for a semblance of journalistic respectability. It is now even considering opening a Washington D.C. bureau to look for more dirt among politicians.

The jury is still out. The winners will be announced April 12.  But my vote is in.  No.

Image courtesy of politico.com.

The story of why a now ex-New York Times business reporter succumbed to plagiarism goes beyond “accidental plagiarism,” as Zachery Kouwe, a 31-year-old business reporter that writes The Times’ Deal Book called it. The public counts on a professional journalist to know better than to lift somebody else’s words and use them as his/her own, more so when it comes from a reporter of the venerable and trusted New York Times.

Anyway, as we all know from the media’s outrage, Kouwe read the signs really well and “resigned” just before he got shown the “door.”

Kouwe’s quite public exit from the Times, certainly rang a warning bell, not only to journalists but to casual bloggers as well, to take note that the driving need to fill uncountable blogs with millions of words, has created a culture of acceptable re-purposing, re-hashing and re-telling of the news from every which angle, in other words, a culture where ‘accidental plagiarism’ can easily happen.

The incident has certainly caused a moment of reflection, forcing a re-evaluation of what is being said, and in whose words it is being said, and for what purpose. I bet every blogger will go back and do some checking…

But what is not acceptable is Kouwe’s comment in an interview with The Observer in reference to the accusation that he had plagiarized in which he said, “I was in complete shock,” and “I was as surprised as anyone that this was occurring.” His lame excuse — that he writes approximately 7,000 words every week for the blog and for the paper and that given the mounds of reporting he does, something is bound to fall through the cracks as he peruses press releases, earnings reports and court documents for his reporting. Which goes directly to my point of the desperate need to fill blogs with whatever…

Here is the funniest mea culpa I have ever heard. A professional journalist that can actually say, “I thought it was my own stuff,” and “it somehow slipped in there.”

Somehow? I think that most journalists know better than Mr. Kouwe that a cut and paste job is never acceptable. But I would advise bloggers who are not held to the same high standards of journalists, that they better slow down, think more as to what to write and maybe choose to write less — and stick to their own words.

Photo by Getty Images.

Rival sniping commentators, Keith Olbermann (Countdown on MSNBC) and Bill O’Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel), are at it again, flinging insults across the airwaves. The long-running name-calling saga, silenced last Spring by parent companies MSNBC’s General Electric and the FOX’s News Corporation with a handshake agreement for a cease fire, sparked again last Monday night and erupted into a raging fire.

A pretty mad Olbermann, insulted his rival, Bill O’Reilly and the News Corporation’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, by calling O’Reilly a “racist clown” in reference to an O’Reilly statement made two years ago about a black-owned restaurant and brought up again by O’Reilly himself, (but this time much tempered and changed), following the arrest of Harvard’s Professor Gates. Olbermann, fired the first shot, and called O’Reilly on the re-worded statements and repeated, on air, his inappropriately racists remarks of two years ago. Not surprisingly, O’Reilly shot back, claiming that G.E., through MSNBC, was “promoting the election of Barack Obama, and then seeking to profit from his policies,” — which brought the “parents” back out scrambling to salvage the old cease-fire and mend fences.

Their reasons for concern are self-serving. Apparently Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Immelt are concerned about any perceived damage to their corporate reputations, when in fact it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the freedom of the press.

So the old question begs as to who sets the boundaries in reporting – “parents” who pay the bills, or journalists? Whose interests do the journalists serve first, their parent’s or that of the public at large?

I commend Olbermann for throwing caution to the wind by going against his “parent,” in using his own judgment as to what should, or should not, be said on his program — and when and how. It gives me renewed hope that “parental” pacts cannot, and should not, infringe on journalism and that unbridled journalism will prevail.

I say let commentators keep commentating. No more corporate agendas, please. No more corporate handshakes. Let the judgment of a journalist dictate as to where the boundaries lie, as long as it stays within accepted broadcast legal parameters.

There is no question that the news via user-generated, would-be photographers, and opinionated bloggers, travels at an unfathomable speed and, more often than not, trips up venerated mainstream journalists and photojournalists.  (Witness the images of US Air Flight #1549’s water landing taken by a person who just happened to be on a nearby ferry and who snapped a picture with his iPhone , then uploaded it to his Twitter stream, before US Airways was able to issue a statement.)

The idea of getting a “scoop on the news” is more or less out of reach today for professional journalists, with few exceptions such as frontline international news made in the hinterlands of the world, first hand government initiatives, diplomatic maneuvers, etc.

Ok, that’s today’s reality, so what’s the problem?

Would-be journalists are not trained to be reliable sources for news.  Their “news” is often subjective and, in the speed with which it is dispersed, is rarely fact-checked.  If understood as such, it makes a fine addition as a mass communication avenue.

But it becomes a problem when one takes note that there is a whole segment of the public out there that takes “amateur” journalism at face value with little consideration for the difference between them and the venerated journalists, who know how to frame the news within context, have a talent for building a story while understanding the complexities of its terrain, and who have the grasp for giving us contrasting points of views, allowing the reader to form an opinion based on our trust in them.

I think I will stick to the professionals for staying informed.

I love the NY Times.  It has been my “journalistic” bible since my first days as a PR professional.  Moreover, I peruse the Opinion page even before I finish the front page.  And that is why I was so disappointed with Nicholas Kristof’s column in the NY Times on Sunday January 18.

Traditionally there has been a line written in stone between journalism and advertising – a heavy black line.  However, in the last decade, that line took on shades of gray when smaller publications offered editorial content, when advertising dollars were spent.  And then, of course, came the advertorial, which is an ad disguised as an editorial.

But I did not expect a venerable columnist such as Kristof to muddle the PR/Advertising waters.

In his column he wrote about a contest that he “concocted” that takes the winning university student with him on a reporting trip to Africa.  The reason for the trip is commendable, since he wanted to generate “activism for distant people whom we can’t visualize” and basically build outrage among young people for the likes of Dafur, Somalia, etc. through first hand experience.

But my take is that he used his column as a self-serving vehicle to advertise his contest, right down to what applicants can do and how.  The column speaks directly to potential applicants basically soliciting applications.  C’mon, that’s advertising.

I don’t profess to tell the NY Times how their much-respected columnists should write.  I also do not have a problem with informing readers about a courageous step taken to engage young people as to global issues. But I do have a problem with the way it was written.

As a PR professional I still believe that journalists, opinion writers or not, should adhere to that old rule of separating editorial facts and opinions from blatant self-serving solicitation which is best left to advertising.