David Piggott at Westminster for the Maggie Nally Memorial Lecture

I have to admit I was pretty excited when I got suited and booted for the CIPR Maggie Nally Memorial Lecture.

Not only was this West Country boy in the Big Smoke, but I was also going to have a chance to listen to Richard Gizbert. I’d looked at some of his work in the past and had a feeling I wouldn’t be falling asleep…unlike in some of my university lectures.

Task one was getting into the House of Commons; not so much a task, as a chance to imagine yourself in an episode of Spooks.

As I was in my wheelchair I had to enter a couple of lifts, which I like to think were scanning me and assessing my threat level.

Pretty soon technology will be so advanced that scanners will be able to work out your sarcasm level by how wide your smile is and how much glint is in the eye – if you seem too sarcastic a political strategist or pollster will come down and question you, showing you various political pictures and slogans all containing the words “new and change”, “does this make you feel more or less cynical” to which I would say: “Why is he smiling, he’s in politics?”

I tried to smile while I was having my photograph taken but it was taken before I was ready so it looked as though a raindrop had fallen directly into my eye. A good look I’m sure you’ll agree.

After taking the scenic route with my chair I arrived at Committee Room 10 and was met with a very warm welcome by Eva Maclaine, one of the organisers, which straight away put me at ease. It was good to see the interaction between different people in the room. There was no sense of hierarchy, just old friends and new acquaintances coming together to listen and learn.

The introduction to the lecture was given by Mathew Francis, chair of the CIPR’s International Committee. He outlined the purpose and the principle behind the Maggie Nally lectures before handing over to the main man, Richard Gizbert of Al Jazeera.

Hacks versus flacks

After putting the audience at ease with a joke Richard began by touching on the subject of the interdependent relationship between PR and journalism by using an example of the famous nemesis  movie quote: “We’re not so very different you and I”. This in itself was interesting to hear as more often than not the narrative of hacks versus flacks still prevails over the narrative of co-operation.

Richard spoke about the launch of Al Jazeera English and how under the Bush doctrine Al Jazeera was known as the ‘bad guy’ and how difficult it was to get the project off the ground due to negative perceptions and a hostile reception from the US government.

Richard discussed the harsh realities faced by those working at Al Jazeera Arabic, such as the death and injury of two Al Jazeera journalists caused by a US missile. Whatever people may think about the state of the media, it cannot be denied that those reporting from conflict zones do a dangerous but worthwhile job.  Throughout the talk Richard was able to deliver insight and reasoning on why leaders behave in certain ways and how policy in North American is shaped.

Arab Spring

Before moving on to the Arab Spring and the role of social and traditional media, Richard highlighted the gap between peoples’ political awareness and awareness of media influence. He stated that, while people in North America had become more politically aware, they had not managed to transfer this awareness to the media whose power has been compared to that of armies and weapons.

From this Richard moved on to talk about the show that he presents, ‘Listening Post’, which seeks to report on the powerful institutions that make up the media. ‘Listening Post’ has received critical acclaim and is seen by many as required viewing.

Media scrutiny

Speaking about the lack of scrutiny that the media receives, he said: “We do know there’s a level of self-interest involved. I’m not saying that other societal institutions aren’t important but if you look at the role that the US media played in Iraq and you just ask yourself the question, when was the last time a school helped start a war?” This quote really resonated with me as all too often it is easy for those working in and with the media to get trapped in a bubble and not realise the consequences that actions can have.

Richard’s view on the role that social and traditional media played in the Arab Spring was also very interesting. It’s his belief that the uprisings were helped by a combination of both social and traditional media working together. Richard spoke about needing to work in partnership with people producing the information and its need to be contextualised and collated.

This did have me thinking about how and by whom that information is presented. It’s well known that a sound bite or a story can be taken out of context to fulfil a news agenda. This is why it is important that journalists like Richard Gizbert continue to be the norm and not the exception.

Party in parliament

After the talk I was able to meet many people including fellow PR students.  It is always good to meet your peers and have the chance to exchange ideas and learn about different courses, while trying not to make a bad joke.

During this period I had an opportunity to speak with Patrick Nally, son of Maggie Nally and a bit of a legend in sports marketing. Just from speaking to him for a few minutes I could tell he was full of ideas and that he knew how to execute them.

Dinner was held in Cholmondeley room which had a magnificent view of the Thames; again I got to talk to many people, all of them warm, humble and hospitable a far cry from the Malcolm Tucker PR type. I would certainly recommend that any PR student check out the CIPR.

The event was thought-provoking, insightful and interesting. As a student of PR I can often be cynical about the fourth estate. Hearing a highly trained, highly ethical journalist speak on his work has renewed my faith.

A TV and online platform will be supported by professional journalism, UK-wide news distribution and a new online Academy of Citizen Journalism. The new Academy will provide community news hubs with the tools, online training and resources to support and develop the skills of the Active Citizen Journalists who will be at the heart of the hubs.

Media Trust will provide structure for the thousands of local community news outlets that exist throughout the UK including on websites and newsletters. Through the Academy, training will provide communities with the power to deliver quality journalism, whilst the existing Community Channel online and on television will form a national platform that aggregates community news, stories, blogs and videos. The local hubs will be supported by an amazing network of media volunteers and mentors and the Media Trust’s Newswire and Community Channel platforms

Peter Wanless, Chief Executive, Big Lottery Fund said: “Media Trust’s plans to empower people to drive their local news agenda, inspire community action and build their media skills, are a great example of the ethos of BIG’s People Powered Change. BIG looks forward to seeing many more citizen journalists sharing their new skills with other local communities.”

Caroline Diehl MBE, Chief Executive of Media Trust said:

“This funding is fantastic news for communities and charities throughout the UK. Together with Big Lottery Fund and Media Trust’s partners and corporate members, we will be able to connect communities to share their stories with each other locally, regionally, nationally and throughout the UK in a way that inspires us all to create positive social change.”

First, a note on the medium.

Dan Gillmor, author of We the Media, decided to self publish his new book because no traditional publisher would accept his requirement to make the text simultaneously available for free under a Creative Commons licence (the text is available at mediactive.com). Why give something away for free if you’re trying to make money out of it?

The author deserves a fair return for his work – and I bought my review copy in Kindle format for £5.88 – but I suspect he’s more interested in spreading his ideas than in making a short-term profit.

So to the message.

The author is an experienced journalist who now teaches entrepreneurial journalism and is involved in an advisory capacity with a number of digital media start-ups.

His book begins with a diagnosis of the problems besetting the traditional news business – and the problems of misinformation in the age of digital media. Many bemoan the decline of local newspapers and the ease with which rumours and falsehoods spread on the internet. But Gillmor remains optimistic:

Tomorrow’s media will be more diverse, by far, than today’s. We can imagine, therefore, a journalism ecosystem that’s a vital part of our expanded mediasphere and vastly healthier and more useful than the monocultural media of recent times – if we get it right. That we means all of us. Remember, Digital Age media are broadly distributed and participatory – broadly democratic.

Given the diagnosis of the problems facing traditional media, and the need to ensure that we can trust the media of the near future, Gillmor proceeds to offer a prescription for those participating in this new age of digital media – including the students he teaches.

I envy my students, and I tell them so; they and countless others like them around the world are inventing our media future, and the field is wide open for them in ways that I could not have imagined when I started my own career.

Principles for media consumers

Becoming an active user demands media literacy and an understanding of the principles governing media consumption. His guiding principles (in US English) are:

1. Be Skeptical
2. Exercise Judgment
3. Open Your Mind
4. Keep Asking Questions
5. Learn Media Techniques

It comes down to this: As news accelerates faster and faster, you should be slower to believe what you hear, and you should look harder for the coverage that pulls together the most facts with the most clarity about what’s known and what’s speculation.

This is much more easily said than done. It takes energy and experience to perform ‘due diligence’ on every story we encounter. Gillmor is clearly better at this than most: ‘When a news report quotes anonymous sources, I immediately question the entire thing’, he writes.

Most of his examples are from the US, though Gillmor admires British journalism. He describes how he buys The Guardian and The Telegraph when in London: both do excellent journalism, he writes, but from different political perspectives. ‘I read both and figure I’m triangulating on the essence of (British establishment) reality.’

Media production principles

Since we all have the tools of media production at our fingertips, what principles should even amateurs follow? Gillmor recommends:

• Thoroughness
• Accuracy
• Fairness
• Independence
• Transparency

Of these, he argues that transparency is the most important and he reveals a paradox in stating: ‘If you do an honest job as well as you can, greater transparency will lead your audience to trust you more while they may believe you less’. This is because transparency requires you to declare your biases and to acknowledge your mistakes. Though not mentioned explicitly, this guideline works for public relations advocacy. Those seeking to be trusted must accept that they won’t always be believed.

Gillmor reviews the main categories of digital media (though he promises more at the mediactive.com website) and reminds us that ‘the most important element in your media creation is not the technology… What matters is you.’

After a discussion of entrepreneurial journalism, he reviews the legal and social landscape affecting content producers.

Finally, he turns to teaching and learning mediactivity, for which he advocates critical thinking.

We regiment children instead of helping them to be creative, teaching them to take standardized tests instead of teaching them to think for themselves. In too many school districts, teaching critical thinking would be denounced as a dangerous experiment. It’s not dangerous at all. It’s entirely American to challenge authority.

The book is a powerful manifesto for change written by a trustworthy guide. I had thought he was being over-boastful in the many names he introduces as close friends in the book – but then realised that Gillmor is simply practising the principles he’s preached in his book, above all to be transparent about his connections and biases.

Becoming a mediactivist should be fun – but will impose many obligations.

The nationwide quest seeks to find undiscovered writers who deserve to take the title of Column Idol 2010.

The hunt is being supported by rapper Dizzee Rascal and singer-songwriter Diana Vickers.

Those judged to have the best six ideas will receive training and mentoring to bring their creative idea to life, write their own column and pitch it to a panel of experts. The overall winner will have their column printed in The Sun newspaper for all to see. The competition is specifically looking to support young people in England who feel their voice is unheard and wouldn’t usually have access to an opportunity like this.

‘Everybody’s got a talent, everybody’s got a skill, some people just don’t have the belief. It doesn’t matter what background you come from, some of the greatest minds were from poor backgrounds, what they had was the drive, the work ethic and the vision. A newspaper like The Sun is informative and entertaining so that is exactly what your column needs to be. It is the same with music, you want to entertain people but tell them something at the same time. My tip to entrants would be, if you have a strong point of view about something you should use that, and I always think it is important to put humour into whatever you write, show your passion and your personality.’ Dizzee Rascal

I love being creative and can sometimes find it hard to express my emotions so I do it through lyrics. Hearing the final product, or in the case of a columnist seeing your final piece in a newspaper, is a brilliant buzz. It gives me a real sense of pride to hear a finished song and it would be the same seeing your finished column in a newspaper. It’s an amazing feeling.’ Diana Vickers

The competition closes at midday on Monday 9 August.

Read the terms and conditions here; and click here to enter the competition.

But they are sadder days by far when the circulation figures are released now. The chip shop uses plain paper today; our local newsagent closed down last week. It has become all too easy to live without newspapers.

There are many new ways to receive and absorb news, and all are welcome, not least because young people with an alarming absence of curiosity about the world around them will nevertheless read the headlines while checking their Yahoo mail. It is not my place to decry Twitter news alerts or ignore the value of RSS feeds.

But I can’t eat my breakfast without a newspaper, or a magazine. In times of emergency, when the last page of the Guardian has been tucked under the defrosting fridge or shredded for cat litter, I’ve been known to read the Ikea catalogue at the breakfast table. The Times is terrific for a leisurely Saturday lunch; the Halifax Courier is great when there’s only time to stop for a coffee. There’s usually a supplement of some sort, colour or otherwise, to rely on when I’m stranded in the car, waiting for the kids, or a delayed train, or the rain to stop.

There is much to be missed in the selectivity of electronically-delivered news. Back copies of Behind the Spin have pride of place in my office, in seminar rooms, and in the kitchen magazine rack. It was a classy publication, good to look at, substantial to hold, and with fascinating content on every page.

Now I see only the “relevant” items, the feature about Twitter which mentions one of my graduates, for example, spotted and forwarded by a keen student. Here, in front of the screen, I don’t have the time to read the entire online version. (Time is not the only excuse, it must be confessed; eyestrain and arthritic fingers are other barriers. Be warned, all you who spend your days screen-bound.)

Filtering news

Selectivity and electronic options mean that students will choose to read about the Real Jade Goody rather than the Real IRA. They know which celebrities climbed Kilimanjaro but fail to recognise the prime minister of Zimbabwe. This is not cynical supposition but a claim based on sound evidence;

I run a weekly news quiz in seminars and it’s rare for the top score to be more than 4 out of 10. I’ve taught them how to Twitter, but I’d feel a greater sense of professional achievement if they carried the Indy, the Times or even the Mirror into class.

It’s not only the content that is being missed, but also that sense of perspective, required by readers as well as journalists, which is enabled by the graphological nature of the printed page. The juxtaposition of stories on the page is the key to understanding news agendas. (A friend who once worked for the Daily Mail told this story about news values and story placement. It was shortly after the era of the Yorkshire Ripper, and the news desk took a call about the murder of a young woman in South Manchester. A slot was saved on the front page, until the details came in. She was black, and a prostitute. It made two paragraphs on page 8.)

The PR world welcomed Andrew Currah’s Reuter’s Institute report (What’s happening to our news?) and recognised gratefully the value in his assertion: “..we view the PR industry as an integral component of the media landscape, and as a pivotal agent in the gathering, packaging and dissemination of news to consumers.”

Richard Griffiths, head of strategic media, Ketchum UK was quoted recently as saying that “Blogs and websites are not reducing the influence of professional journalism”. His argument was supported by Peter Jenkins, head of PR at the Energy Retail Association: “The rise of citizen journalism means consumers will eventually revert back to trusted news sources. The consumer will become increasingly sceptical and will look to specialist publications rather than blogs to get information.” And Zoe Arden, quoted in the same issue of PR Week, joined in: “No matter how big the blogosphere gets, information provided by a professional journalist will always be more credible”.

Local matters

So there’s a resounding vote of confidence in “journalism”, but print versions of newspapers need to be part of that media landscape. Andy Green, whose Overcoming Stupidity is propped on my desk, wrote recently about the demise of regional newspapers (where the situation is stark). He bemoans the loss of parochialism and regionalism: “In my part of the world, what makes news in Bradford doesn’t make news in Leeds (ten miles distant). Indeed, regionalism may have been deemed dead in some respects certainly at a local political level where people are not interested in what the councils of Hull, Leeds, Bradford or York have planned for their citizens.”

But he says that in spite of this “I still love the Yorkshire Post and buy it every day. Similarly, as a resident of Barnard Castle I bought the Teesdale Mercury every week when I lived there.

Local is so important in regional newspapers. Back in the day when I was still a journalist – that meant covering the Women’s Institute meeting, the Parish Council and the local art competition. The idiocy of the current situation is that the more you cut the editorial resource, the more you damage a newspaper’s ability to report local news.”

Yes, that news is available and should be available online, but in print as well. It is perhaps time for newspaper readers to fight back, to refuse the “inevitable” accession of electronic media as the only source of news. Co-existence must be possible, and we who wish to be semi-detached from our computers for at least some of the day, may have to state our case more loudly.

Photography by Victoria Louise Crampton

The three year degree course at Leeds Metropolitan University has been developed in collaboration with regional and national journalists from print, broadcast and online media. 

The course comes under the Public Relations and Communications subject group within the Faculty of Business and Law.

Course leader Annisa Suliman said: “It’s unusual for courses such as this to be born out of Public Relations provision and to find their home in business rather than humanities faculties. But, I feel it’s an acknowledgement that though journalism and PR are two separate entities, there is a synergy between the two and whether they like it or not practitioners in both areas must acknowledge that today’s journalists have to work closely with those in communications. 

“The siting of journalism in the business school is important because, whether print- or broadcast-based, news industries are just that – industries – and they must understand the regional, national and global marketplace.”

Senior lecturer Jason McCartney said the links with business and the emphasis on skills development across multimedia platforms will give Leeds Met graduates an advantage when looking for work: “I am looking forward to helping students to develop skills and industry contacts that will enable them to start their careers in a very competitive industry and I’m relishing the challenge of making this one of the region’s top journalism courses.”

The first intake of students this year was fully subscribed.

But the world’s still spinning around

Ever wondered how the various media channels all seem to cover the same stories on any given day? Ever thought it odd that they so often seem to run with the same angle on these same stories?

Flat Earth News is one journalist’s investigation into the rotten state of news reporting and its over-reliance on public relations and news agency sources.

The headline figure is certainly striking. Author Nick Davies cites a Cardiff University study for his book showing that over 60% of home news stories in the quality national dailies came wholly or mainly from agency copy or PR sources. A further 20% had clear elements of wire copy and/or PR.

Note that this is home news in the quality newspapers (all the ‘broadsheets’ plus The Mail, but excluding the Financial Times). Had the study looked at celebrity and sports coverage and scrutinised the ‘tabloids’, then the pattern might have been even more pronounced.

Should we care? Perhaps not as much as Davies, whose primary focus is on newspapers. Consumers of news, comment and features have never had a wider choice of content in the form of newspapers, magazines, broadcast channels and websites, much of it available for free.

And it may not cause too much dismay in the public relations industry to know that we’re viewed as much more powerful and controlling than we believe ourselves to be. It’s a hard balancing act, though: should you allow your bosses or clients to believe that you have more control over an independent media than you in reality do, or should you continue to warn them that it takes skill, stamina and sensitivity to persuade a sceptical media of the merits of your story? That public relations is ‘pray for play’, not ‘pay for play’.

The problem with journalism stems from commercial pressures, Davies suggests. It takes time and resources to check facts and unearth uncomfortable truths. It’s much easier to rewrite copy from official sources, and this allows fewer journalists to write more stories to fill more pages or broadcast bulletins. Journalism has become ‘churnalism’ in pursuit of profits and ratings.

The title of the book refers to ideas that are received truths (for example that the earth is flat) until they are challenged by a maverick truth-seeker, often in the face of hostility from those in positions of power. Yet Nick Davies suffers from his own flat earth blind spot: he cannot accept the free market as a potential force for good. Throughout the book, left wing causes are assumed to be good, those championed by conservatives or free marketers are assumed to be bad.

One of these free market creations is, of course, the public relations industry. ‘Journalists who no longer have the time to go out and find their own stories and to check the material which they are handling, are consistently vulnerable to ingesting and reproducing the packages of information which are provided for them by this PR industry. At the very least, this involves their being directed into accepting stories and angles which have been chosen for them in order to satisfy somebody else’s commercial or political interests. At the worst, this embroils them in the dissemination of serious distortion and falsehood.’

The case against public relations is drawn from some familiar sources. There’s Edward Bernays speaking up in favour of propaganda as a means of social control, but without his words being put into their historical context. There’s Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders and Daniel Boorstin’s The Image and, of course, Stauber and Rampton, whose Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! is cited by many PR academics, but whose real target seems to me to be big business.

Then there are the case studies in which light is shed on the black art of PR. Weber Shandwick need have no concern about their work on behalf of P&O over the Aurora’s maiden voyage. Technical problems forced the ship to return to dock within 24 hours of setting off on its maiden voyage in May 2000. ‘Shandwick took over management of the crisis and rapidly saw the threat of Fleet Street taking its angle from 1,800 angry passengers. That day, with the passengers still at sea, the PR agency took control of the story, issuing a press release, briefing 110 reporters, emphasising three angles: that the ship had passed its sea trials, that the passengers would be compensated, and that the Aurora’s next scheduled cruise in a fortnight would go ahead as planned. These angles successfully dominated the first day’s coverage.’

By the end of the second day, ‘the result was that the crisis was converted into good news. The Times headline compliantly captured the impact of Shandwick’s work: ‘P&O sails back on wave of goodwill’. They had achieved this through a strategy of briefing the media and of promising full refunds and a free second cruise to the passengers. What’s wrong with that?

Most public relations students become animated when propaganda is discussed, and many PR academics can follow Kevin Moloney in accepting that public relations is a form of ‘white propaganda’. But Flat Earth News is more important than this: it reminds us that ‘falsehood, distortion and propaganda’ continue to flourish at the start of the twenty first century. What’s to be done about this?

Davies tentatively suggests a supreme news agency to arbitrate on the truthfulness of the news. But it’s more likely that falsehood, distortion and propaganda will be called to account through free speech and free market principles in the form of fact-checking bloggers.