The Flack

This weblog attempts to shine a brighter light on the subtle role public relations plays in politics, culture, media, business and sports. Through greater transparency, the author hopes to make the profession better understood and perhaps more widely appreciated.

A phone call from a “60 Minutes” or “20/20″ producer used to strike fear in the hearts and minds of PR pros everywhere. This was especially true if the call arrived at the final stages of production of a likely critical segment. After all, investigative news journalists held all the cards, or so it seemed.

What if we insisted that we be allowed to tape the interview in exchange for granting access to our newsmaker client? To our surprise, in 1985, “60 Minutes” agreed, but with one ground rule: our cameras shut down when theirs did. Henceforth, the playing field was at least partially leveled.

In a piece today that has all sorts of ramifications for PR practitioners, New York Times newspaper beat reporter Katharine Seelye (finally) reports on how unedited source material can be used in this day and age to give an interviewee a leg up on the interviewer. Unlike the “60 Minutes” example wherein PR pros remained at the mercy of other TV (or print) news gatekeepers to carry a client’s unedited (non-reported) perspective, the advent of publicly accessible, RSS-enabled weblogs, podcasts and other forms of digital content delivery can make any newsmaker a news producer as well.

Dallas Mavs owner, tech mogul and widely linked-to blogger Mark Cuban demonstrated this tact so effectively this past summer when he posted his unedited e-mail exchange with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Ms. Seelye’s colleague on the Times’s business pages. Mr. Cuban was miffed by a piece Mr. Sorkin had written in which he believed his comments were taken out of context.

PR maven Howard Rubenstein’s supposedly smarter son Steven had this to say:

“…a corporation must also consider whether publishing such material would alienate an influential beat reporter as well as an entire news outlet and possibly reporters for other outlets. ‘You have to balance the incident over the long-term relationship,’ he said. ‘But you can get your side out in a benign way. It doesn’t have to be antagonistic.’” 

Right. It may be okay for Mr. Cuban to blindside The Times’s lead M&A reporter, but for most of us whose livelihoods rely on honest and mutually dependent relationships with mainstream reporters, it is not a practice to be considered lightly or without the cognizance and consent of the inquiring journalist.

Posted in Institutions & Enterprises, 60 Minutes | No Comments »

A 60 Minute Remedy

Posted by Peter Himler on 6th June 2005

Example

In a most unusual segment airing last night on “60 Minutes,” a senior executive of Pfizer appeared with reporter Bob Simon advocating “re-importation” as the antidote to high drug prices in the U.S. What made it unusual — and quite different from previous “whistleblowing” on the news magazine — was that the Pfizer executive remains an employee of the world’s largest pharmaceutical company (for now) and his message is counter to the company’s position on the issue.

I suspect the executive secured permission (and caution) from management to be interviewed, along with the head of Pfizer’s drug safety division who appeared in the segment to advocate the company’s position. (We’ve certainly come a long way since Brown & Williamson’s Jeff Weigand appearance on the show…without company permission.)

This contradictory public approach highlights the dilemma many well-meaning corporations face today -a paradox I wrote about in a posting on this blog (”A Tale of Two Cities,” May 27). In it I talked about command and control versus transparency and CSR. Personally, I think it’s commendable for Pfizer to have allowed this executive to appear on camera. The open dialogue on this issue portends good tidings. I’m sure Microsoft’s celebrity blogger Robert Scoble would agree.

Posted in 60 Minutes | No Comments »

The National News Agenda & “60 Minutes”

Posted by Peter Himler on 2nd May 2005

Example

Last night, CBS-TV’s (once) venerable news program “60 Minutes” led the show with a devastating report on prisoner abuse and alleged cover-up by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay. Five years ago, a story like this would have been picked up by the national media, perhaps even prompting a Congressional investigation. Yet, if one looks at the headlines this morning, Pvt. Lynndie England’s much-documented perversion at Abu Ghraib, and the reduced sentence her lawyers orchestrated, overshadows these shocking new revelations from Cuba.

Kevin Tedesco, a most competetent PR professional who works for “60 Minutes,” certainly is not to blame for the relative disappearing act of last night’s lead story. In fact, the Washington Post and New York Daily News, among others, chimed in with advance stories on Friday. Even so, the ability of this once most-trusted news source to catalyze change has been diluted by the combination of media fragmentation and a growing public mistrust (fueled by special interests) of many former agenda-setting news organizations.

I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this story about Gitmo since the “60 Minutes” piece was pegged to the publication of a new book on the subject.

Still Kevin and his team, who are privvy to the more newsworthy story segments in the works, should perhaps look beyond the MSM to the blogosphere in an effort to build grassroots awareness and interest in its stories. Just a thought.

Posted in 60 Minutes, Guantanamo | No Comments »