In case you missed it, Neville Hobson cracked the PR discussion wide open last week, when - in response to an article written by John Lloyd for the Financial Times - he stated that:

"... most PRs and journalists add little value to truth-telling if they’re nothing more than channels or conduits who distort and manipulate the original message. Assuming, of course, that their roles are to do with truth-telling. If you want to get close to the truth, cut out the middlemen. Let the citizens make up their own minds as to what is truth."

(As you can well imagine, the 50+ comments this post generated were no surprise.)

But let's backtrack for a second and look at Neville's post in context (as context is always key):

In a jaundiced view of the relationship between journalism and PR in politics, Lloyd’s “The Truth about Spin” in Friday’s FT presents an uncomfortable partnership between two professions where neither appears to have anything other than self-interest as its motive for being:

"There is a phrase attributed to, among others, Harold Evans when he was editor of The Sunday Times, which was advice given to his reporters: “Always ask yourself, when interviewing a politician, why is this bastard lying to me?” It’s been denounced as cynical, but it’s from a more innocent age. It was self-servingly innocent to assume that “lying” is a one-sided phenomenon. Today, advice by any government communications adviser to ministers, MPs, civil servants and political aides would be a variation on the Evans advice: “Always ask yourself, when being interviewed by a journalist, how will this bastard distort what I’m saying?”

While Lloyd paints a dark and cynical picture of this journalism/PR niche, he then goes on to highlight a significant point which I believe is the heart of the real symbiosis between journalism and PR:

[…] "Public relations and journalism do not inhabit separate worlds; in particular, the relationship between them is not that of sleazy liars seeking to seduce seekers after truth. Truth does not reside on one side only. Standards are not the monopoly of one and unknown to the other. Journalism cannot understand itself unless it understands what public relations has done to it; how murky and grubby the relationship can become, with the connivance of both, and how the relationship might work to the benefit of citizens who should be told something like the truth."

Some might say that if you want the truth, don’t read newspapers.

What Lloyd’s feature indicates to me is the role social media will play (is playing) in evolving that symbiosis where no longer will it be just an inefficient and untrustworthy filtering system. And in the political area, we need more direct-speaking from ministers and MPs without the filtered spin from PRs and journalists.

This, of course, is highly subjective. Many journalists do seek to present the truth in their pieces, and many news organizations do strive to present a balanced (or at least complete) view of every topic they choose to cover. Other than just... let's call it... professionalism, the element of respect for the subject is always present. (I don't think that professionalism and respect can exist apart from each other, but that's a whole other topic we'll have to get back to someday.) Unfortunately, ot all journalists and news outlets are as concerned with practicing great journalism. There's a growing army of well-credentialled folks out there whose focus has more to do with sensationalism, ratings and a vitriolic brand of cynicism than real journalism, and they have more or less poisoned our opinion of the entire profession . (The rotten apples in the proverbial applecart theory.) That's sad... And undeserved. Assigning labels to an entire industry because a portion of it is on the rotten side isn't fair. (We've had this discussion in regards to WOMM.)

Likewise, many PR professionals are seen merely as "spinsters" (the term "liar" isn't skill-specific, I suppose), but fortunately, most PR professionals aren't liars or spinsters. They simply tell the story of their clients' brands. They serve as filters in an environment that finds itself increasingly poluted by "noise".

In the comment section of Neville's post, the always lovely and brilliant Amanda Chapel reminds us that:

"There’s a point where the public will be absolutely saturated with, and rail against, inane and undisciplined commentary."

To which Nev replies:

"There is already so much noise out there that filtering is becoming an art."

This is one of the greatest values of PR 2.0, by the way. We aren't just talking about filtering in terms of funneling information to journalists and the public, but also presenting and formulating thoughts, words, viewpoints, announcements and declarations in such a way that they don't backfire or become easily taken out of context. This takes a rare and valuable set of skills. Without a top notch PR filter or mechanism in place, the slighest utterance can have dire consequences for even the most experienced of public figures and orators. (Sad, but true.)

Here's a great example, offered by John Lloyd:

"Did you see what happened to Larry Summers, president of Harvard, when he thought out loud? He became the soon-to-be-ex-president of Harvard. Care in presentation is now seen by savvy people in public life as the way you achieve your goals. Thinking out loud, or speaking frankly, is seen as an indulgent luxury."

Ah so.

Here's what John Lloyd also had to say about spin, which is often a necessary (albeit regretable) defense mechanism:

"All institutions have spun themselves. Some with colossal energy and great success - the Catholic Church would be one such. Governments have done so with less success, in part because they have faced greater competition than the Catholic Church (at least in its pre-Reformation period) and also because they claim they create earthly as against eternal joy, a claim easier to disprove.

"Most individuals spin themselves - representing themselves as attractive, intelligent, diligent and trustworthy, especially at critical times such as job interviews or seduction opportunities. Spinning would seem to be a necessary attribute of intelligent humanity.

"And since humans are intelligent, they don’t believe institutions, political parties and other individuals - fully. If they do they are usually disappointed - even if the institution, party or individual is telling the truth. It is a definition of maturity to know where trust should end and scepticism begin, and how both can co-exist even, perhaps especially, with people you respect, or love.

"Public relations and journalism do not inhabit separate worlds; in particular, the relationship between them is not that of sleazy liars seeking to seduce seekers after truth. Truth does not reside on one side only. Standards are not the monopoly of one and unknown to the other."

Ultimately, speaking your mind and standing by your convictions is a very difficult thing to do in this day and age, unless you are completely secure either in your position of power or with the idea that you may very soon be looking for a new job. CEO's and managers can be fired or forced to step down for the slightest spoken opinion. University presidents. Students. Teachers. TV show hosts. Everyone has become a target. Every word has become a liability. Behind every photograph, every handshake, and every dinner party is an allegation waiting to be tossed into the tabloid arena.

In such an atmosphere of unnecessary fear, contextual ambivalence, and knee-jerk severances, truth has become the most flagrant victim of our times. Without conviction, there can be no progress, but when the safest position of all is simply to have no position at all, progress becomes pretty unlikely.

Fear turns everything into a spin. (How horrible.) Safety, rather than calculated risk, becomes the norm - not only in what we do, but in what we say.

In this kind of environment, doing nothing, and saying nothing becomes the ultimate recipe for safety, and for the majority of working Americans, safety has become synonymous with success. (If you manage to ever keep from getting downsized, you're doing better than most.)

This is not a healthy recipe for growth, innovation, or progress.

If stagnation is mostly a result of apathy, being stuck in neutral is - very much in the same way - a result of fear. Fear of failure, fear of rejection, fear of embarrassment, and fear of telling the truth. That's the hole we have dug for ourselves over the last three decades, and the PR world's redemption lies in great part in the role it will play in helping dig us out of it.

Ultimately, PR and journalism are forced to exist symbiotically if they are to remain relevant to marketers in the century to come. In the best of worlds, where professionalism, honesty and respect for every element of a story (the subject, the channel, AND the public), PR professionals can be a tremendous source of timely and accurate information for journalists. Likewise, journalists can provide PR professionals with the kind of exposure their clients crave... But in the worst of worlds, where respect, honesty and professionalism sometimes aren't in the picture, where the interest of one side outweighs that of the other, this relationship becomes grossly dysfunctional, and trust goes right out the window.

Without trust, PR and journalism (insofar as they pertain to the corporate world) both become completely irrelevant not only to each other, but to us - the public - as well.

What has certainly been lacking in the PR world since the eighties (and the advent of blogging and citizen journalism is a testament to this) is plain "look-me-in-the-eye" truth. Think John Wayne, here. Think no-nonsense "this-is-how-it-is" declarations. PR shouldn't be about spin, it should be about dialogue. It should tell the truth in its appropriate context.

Perhaps more importantly, PR shouldn't fear bad news so much. Reporting bad news (like a bad quarter or the loss of a major lawsuit) isn't the end of the world. On the contrary. In a world where trust is the rarest of commodities when it comes to politicians and businesses, this is where a few brave companies could truly set themselves apart from the rest of the crowd. Instead of spinning or just plain ignoring (dare I say "denying") the truth, why not spell it out? Why hide? Why lie? Why turn off your audience by being less than truthful?

Imagine if PR professionals were always truly dependable sources of information. wouldn't that be swell?

Here's the last word, again from John Lloyd:

"Public relations is, finally, about truth - which is where we have to talk about lying, or at any rate spin."

Amen.