PressThink: Ketchum and Bloggers: Who Said What? What Remains? Lisa Stone Reports.

Ketchum and Bloggers: Who Said What? What Remains? Lisa Stone Reports.

I expected more response. First, because this was the second time Ketchum was implicated in the possible misuse of taxpayer dollars for propaganda. Second, because USA Today tossed the blogosphere a bone by posting a PDF file of Ketchum's contract. Third, because pushing the PR industry is necessary work.

(Background is Jay Rosen’s, Bloggers Are Missing in Action as Ketchum Tests the Conscience of PR.)

When the blogosphere exploded in response to Greg Toppo’s report that the U.S. Dept. of Education hired commentator Armstrong Williams to promote Bush administration policy, some readers may have gotten the impression that the DOE had signed a contract with Williams.

Wrong.

The DOE did sign a contract, but it wasn’t with Williams. According to documents Toppo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act—and posted on USAToday.com—the DOE signed a $1 million contract with the Washington D.C. office of Ketchum. Ketchum is a firm owned by $8.6 billion media services conglomerate Omnicon.

Ketchum then hired Williams, helped him produce ad spots, oversaw his commentary and TV performance, reported regularly back to the DOE, and wrote Williams his checks for a total of $240,000.

When Toppo’s story broke Jan. 7, I expected PR bloggers to howl in outrage at this abuse of their professional ethos. After all, it didn’t take black journalists long to call Williams on the carpet—the leadership of the National Association of Black Journalists called for an across-the-board media boycott of his work in a scathing public announcement:

“I thought we in the media were supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs,” said NABJ Vice President-Print Bryan Monroe, assistant vice president-news at Knight Ridder. “I thought we had an administration headed by a president who took an oath to uphold the First Amendment, not try to rent it.”

Update: Please see After Matter: Notes, reactions and links at the bottom of this post for comments posted beginning 1.20.05 and later by bloggers Elizabeth Albrycht, Steve Rubel, Trevor Cook, Kevin Dugan, Mike Manuel and others.

Here is a sampling of commentary from PR bloggers who did post about Ketchum’s culpability:

Richard Edelman. (Edelman runs the nation’s largest independent PR firm.) Blog name: Speak Up

January 15: “We have a responsibility to tell the truth, to foster dialogue and to reveal funding sources. We cannot tolerate any arrangement that envisages payment for placement. To do otherwise completely undermines the essence of our position as honest advocate and eliminates the separation of church and state for the media. Why bother reading the editorial copy if it is purchased in the same way as the advertising?” More here. Additional posts: here.

Jeremy Pepper (Independent PR firm owner in Scottsdale, AZ.) Blog name: POP! Public Relations.

January 12: “PRSA and Council for PR Firms take no stance. With the opportunity to take a stand, and put out a strong statment on the Armstrong Williams issue, and PR’s future, both PRSA and Council for PR Firms decided that all the blame lay at the feet of … Armstrong Williams….Neither said anything about Ketchum, but excused Ketchum. This isn’t the type of stance either association should take, but rather forward looking viewpoints and solutions.” More here. Additional posts: here, here and here.

Ben Silverman. (Independent journalist/columnist/publisher in PR.) Blog name: PR Fuel.

January 12: “With the media’s credibility nearing an all-time low, the credibility of the PR industry is not far behind. Those of us on the inside understand the delicate balance of the PR-media relationship, but the vast majority of the population sees PR and media operating in tandem, not independently. Firms like Ketchum, and quasi-journalists like Armstrong Williams, do nothing but help support the latter view. Sooner or later, the other shoe will drop, and both the media and the PR industry will have to answer for their sins. The digital printing press will see to that, even if someone in the mainstream media is unwilling to do so.” More here. Additional posts: here, here and here.

Colin McKay. (Based in Ottawa, Canada.) Blog: Canuckflack

January 12: “Shouldn’t the PR firm be held somewhat accountable for chasing a contract that blatantly violates journalistic norms and the PRSA code of ethics? If you get caught laying a little Astroturf, you should probably take some of the grief as well, don’t you think?” More here. Additional post here.

Tom Murphy. (Based in Ireland. ) Blog name: PR Opinions.

January 12: “Ketchum would want to re-evaluate their VNR business. Is the revenue worth all the grief they are getting? The fact they’ve been using Karen Ryan in the past is worrying to say the least, given the uproar that followed previous VNRs. As a result the response to the Armstrong Williams appearance can’t have been a surprise.Tell me they can’t have been surprised.” More here. Additional post here (don’t miss the comments).

Alice Marshall. Blog name: Technoflak:

January 9: “This is not the first time Ketchum has been caught manufacturing news. What is so stunning is the blatant venality. Usually these things are done with enough subtlety to preserve the fiction of journalistic integrity.” More here. Additional post here.

Shel Holtz. (Writer, principal of Holtz Communication & Technology.) Blog name: a shel of my former self.

January 14: “It seems that ethics policies only apply when the fallout of invoking them is of little consequence. The fact that Ketchum brokered this deal is a clear violation. To pass the buck solely to Williams is the same as letting Charles Manson off scott-free because, after all, it was the rest of the gang who committed the murders; Manson only put them up to it.”

Steve Crescenzo (Consultant, writer, heads Crescenzo Communications) Blog name: Corporate Hallucinations.

January 12: What’s odd about this entire thing is that the silence out of the Ketchum camp has been deafening. As far as I can tell, they have put their organizational head firmly in the sand, and are running from the situation. As you’ll see if you read the full story, Ketchum is referring all calls to the Department of Education. Yes, that’s right. The media relations specialists are referring all calls to the client.

There are some hard-hitting posts in there. But I expected a bigger response for several reasons. First, because this was the second time Ketchum was implicated in the possible misuse of taxpayer dollars to promote propaganda. (Remember “reporter” Karen Ryan? See the original GAO report here.)

Second, because the USAToday.com team took the time to link a PDF file of Ketchum’s contract and toss the PR blogosphere a bone. And, third, because pushing the PR industry is necessary work. Take this tepid statement by Harris Diamond, the 2005 Chairman, Council of Public Relations Firms (Jan. 18):

“While the Council is not in a position to review the Department of Education contract, nor should we be, Ketchum has informed us that they are reviewing all of the issues relating to this matter. We all have high regard for the Ketchum management team, and I am confident they will take whatever action is appropriate. We want to make sure that the Council’s position is clear: Payments to journalists for specific coverage (“pay for play”) is unacceptable.”

Here are a number of questions that occurred to me —someone with only an outsider’s perspective and no industry expertise—as I researched this story. What am I missing? I invite you to add to this list:

Unanswered questions and further thoughts for investigation

1.) Has or hasn’t Ketchum been fined or censured for using taxpayer money for its role in both the Medicare VNR and DOE/Williams media campaigns criticized by the GAO? Why/why not?

2.) As part of the Diversified Agency Services (DAS), a division of the Omnicom Group, are Ketchum officers held to the same corporate code of conduct?

3.) Does the non-disclosure of Armstrong Williams’ arrangement with Ketchum uphold the Omnicom code, both explicitly and in spirit? (See “Political Activities” and “Conclusion” sections)

4.) What are consequences for violating this code of conduct? Within Ketchum? Within Omnicom, the corporation responsible for Ketchum?

5.) The U.S. Dept. of Education signed an agreement with Ketchum designate “Elizabeth McLean”.

Is this person the same Liz McLean who directs Ketchum’s Washington D.C. office? Did she uphold the Omnicom code of conduct? How about PRSA’s?
In this contract, Williams’ compensation for a “Minority Outreach Program” represents less than 15 percent of the nearly $1 million the DOE agreed to pay Ketchum. Is Armstrong Williams the only commentator hired by Liz McLean to advocate for the government?
Who oversaw the creation of the prior Medicare VNR that generated the first GAO complaint?

6.) Are other Omnicom marketing, advertising and PR firms practicing business like Ketchum does? E.G., Ketchum announced a “professional writer’s group” in November of 2004 that includes many name-brand, award-winning former journalists.

What are the disclosure practices and ethical guidelines of working in this group?
Is it possible for one of these journalists to both freelance for Ketchum and a media publication that covers the Ketchum client’s industry? What public disclosures has Ketchum made? How about the writers? Are these disclosures in line with the Omnicom code of ethics? How about PRSAs? How about the SPJs?
Are there any other journalists, commentators, writers, celebrities and/or other public figures on Ketchum’s payroll?
Should agencies stop using journalists to write bylined articles? (Hat-tip: Edelman reader Ged Carroll’s questions here)
Is it ethical to pay journalists to do media training with clients?

7.) Similarly, what are the disclosure practices and ethical guidelines for activities by former elected officials such as former Congresswoman Susan Molinari, who now runs a Ketchum subsidiary?

8.) Should Ketchum return its fee to DOE?

9.) How did Ketchum determine Armstrong Williams’ compensation ($240,000)? Is this fee standard for a commentator/celebrity endorsement? Who set the price? What is a typical budget for ads during the second half of an election on these shows?

After Matter: Notes, reactions and links…

Here’s a list of PR bloggers who have weighed in on Ketchum’s behavior, Jay’s post and this post. I’ve provided a sampling of their comments, but, as always, I urge you to visit their sites to read their full comments in context:

Elizabeth Albrycht. Blog name: CorporatePR.
Here’s a sample of her multifaceted opinion on (a) Ketchum and (b) How she views her writing on the blog:

January 20: “…Ketchum was wrong and their behavior is a stain on the reputation of PR and makes me absolutely livid. I would guess (hope!) that the vast majority of people who work at Ketchum would agree, and I hope we hear more from them. But I am stunned at the buck-passing response of Ketchum leadership.”

…”While I am a blogger, I don’t consider myself a “pit bull of reporting” as Ariana Huffington would say. And Jay’s description of bloggers doesn’t really apply perfectly to me and how I see my blog….In my mind, my blog doesn’t exist for me to report news, but rather to explore theories and issues with a rather academic bent. That being said, I have noticed that I am increasingly being approached as a reporter of sorts, and I am beginning to want to do more independent reporting on the industry. I just haven’t put that into play yet, given I am up to my ears in Forum preparation….” More here.

Steve Rubel. Blog name: Micropersuasion.

>January 19:”I am square on his MIA list. In my case, I feel like I am free and clear because I blog about the intersection between blogs and PR. Blogs had nothing to do with this episode. I am only blogging it now because Rosen, a journalism professor, is criticizing the PR bloggers. Call me provincial, but I really have nothing to add to this dialogue. I feel fine leaving this to folks who blog on the broader PR industry issues. Does Scoble or Doc Searls comment every time the tech industry is attacked? No. Nor does it mean I need to be the PR industry’s Captain America.” More here.

Trevor Cook. Blog name: Corporate Engagement.

January 20:”Let me say at the outset that I think Rosen’s criticisms of the (general lack) of interest PR bloggers have shown in the Ketchum story are valid and important….the problem is that unethical practices affect the PR industry overall and something should be done. Government regulation is not desirable - though it may become inevitable if there are too many scandals. Effective self-regulation by industry bodies seems a forlorn hope. So, maybe we should turn to blogging to focus attention on the practices that give our industry a bad reputation. But, I’m not quite sure how that would work. Would PR people attacking each other look just like an attempt to snare some shred of additional competitive advantage? Still, Rosen’s article is a wake-up call, I think, and I hope it prompts more vigilance on the part of PR bloggers everywhere.” More here.

Mike Manuel. Blog name: Media Guerilla.

January 20: “I feel obligated to chime in with my two cents on Jay Rosen’s post. Honestly, I’m torn over the thing. Part of me is thinking what the f_ _ k, when did I sign up to become a PR industry watchdog? I didn’t get that memo. And quite frankly, I don’t have the time to police the industry. I’m having a hard enough time making time to walk my dog. But the other part of me recognizes there’s a bigger issue here for our industry, and to ignore it or pretend I can’t do my part to shine a light (really, a pocket flashlight) on the issue is silly. The opportunity has come and gone and I’m sorry I missed it, but the lesson has been learned and life goes on.” More here.

I’m eager to grow my initial list of bloggers by adding your name, comment and contributions—or please, add them yourselves below. I’ll keep posting these as I hear of them:

Marc Snyder. Blog name: (emm-ess) consultants

January 20: Here’s my take on it Rosen should have called out our associations, not the bloggers. [Provides list of bloggers who posted about it.] What’s the takeaway for PR bloggers? Some of us should have reacted to this issue. Myself included. Our associations have been silent/obtuse on this issue.” More here.

Also, see Jay Rosen’s growing list of comments at the bottom of this post.

More After Matter: More notes, reactions and links…

I just read Blogger ChrisRaphael’s comment here on Jay Rosen’s original piece: “Perhaps my site is too small and too new to register in the blogosphere, but I did have three posts on Ketchum between January 15 - 18, starting with a look at previous government efforts on propaganda and moving to a criticism of Kotcher’s PR Week article.”

No blog is too small. It’s the quality of the writing that counts. I need to issue a correction: Mediopolis should have been on the list of notable PR blogger contributors with Edelman, Pepper, Canuckflack, Technoflak et al. I take responsibility for any and all posts made before 11:59 p.m. PST on Jan. 19 that I missed in reporting this round-up. I welcome the corrections—please keep them coming!

Mediopolis, founded in January 2005 by bloggers ChrisRaphael, MonikaZ, PauNino and UnsoberGrandpa, performs some of the best blogging I’ve read on Ketchumgate—particularly its scrutiny of media coverage of this story and its historical context for government abuse of propaganda laws:

January 15: “To appreciate how low a modern public relations agency will sink to shape public opinion, it’s worth taking a hard look at Ketchum Public Relations….None of the government agencies were ever held accountable for their propaganda and, of course, it’s unlikely that any government agency will have to make amends for using taxpayer funds to spread propaganda. The Chicago Tribune, in a recent editorial, suggested that the Bush administration was destroying its credibility through phony news reports and journalistic bribery. It made a redundant and useless call for the administration to “tell the truth.” A more successful route might be for news organizations to increase their scrutiny of the propaganda marriage between the U.S. government and public relations firms.” More here. Additional posts here, here, here, here, and here.

Jeneane Sessum. Blog name: Allied.

January 7: “I worked for Ketchum once upon a time. I have never been secret about my likes and dislikes. I have a few fond memories. I also think the business model of BigPR is broken for good.” More here.

Eric Schwartzman. Blog name: Internet PR News Blog

January 17: “Interestingly enough, Rich never mentions Ketchum by name in his column, referring only to a “private p.r. agency” through which the payola flowed. But perhaps more importantly for readers of this blog is that on the heels of Fleischmann-Hillard’s recent indictment for the rampant over billing of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), another big p.r. firm has lost credibility in the eyes of both the media and the public.”
Posted by Lisa Stone at January 20, 2005 11:34 AM Print

The People Formerly Known as the Audience: "You don't own the eyeballs. You don't own the press, which is now divided into pro and amateur zones. You don't control production on the new platform, which isn't one-way. There's a new balance of power between you and us." More...

Migration Point for the Press Tribe: "Like reluctant migrants everywhere, the people in the news tribe have to decide what to take with them. When to leave. Where to land. They have to figure out what is essential to their way of life. They have to ask if what they know is portable." More...

Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over: "Here is one advantage bloggers have in the struggle for reputation-- for the user's trust. They are closer to the transaction where trust gets built up on the Web. There's a big difference between tapping a built-up asset, like the St. Pete Times 'brand,' and creating it from scratch." More...

"Where's the Business Model for News, People?" "It’s remarkable to me how many accomplished producers of those goods the future production of which is in doubt are still at the stage of asking other people, “How are we going to pay our reporters if you guys don’t want to pay for our news?'" More...

National Explainer: A Job for Journalists on the Demand Side of News This American Life's great mortgage crisis explainer, The Giant Pool of Money, suggests that "information" and "explanation" ought to be reversed in our order of thought. Especially as we contemplate new news systems. More...

The Beast Without a Brain: Why Horse Race Journalism Works for Journalists and Fails Us. "Just so you know, 'the media' has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not 'get behind' candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy… or gal. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn’t know what it’s doing.." More...

They're Not in Your Club but They Are in Your League: Firedoglake at the Libby Trial: "I’m just advising Newsroom Joe and Jill: make room for FDL in your own ideas about what’s coming on, news-wise. Don’t let your own formula (blog=opinion) fake you out. A conspiracy of the like minded to find out what happened when the national news media isn’t inclined to tell us might be way more practical than you think." More...

Twilight of the Curmudgeon Class: "We’re at the twilight of the curmudgeon class in newsrooms and J-schools. (Though they can still do a lot of damage.) You know they’re giving up when they no longer bother to inform themselves about what they themselves say is happening." More...

Getting the Politics of the Press Right: Walter Pincus Rips into Newsroom Neutrality "The important thing is to show integrity-- not to be a neuter, politically. And having good facts that hold up is a bigger advantage than claiming to reflect all sides equally well." More...

A Most Useful Definition of Citizen Journalism "It's mine, but it should be yours. Can we take the quote marks off now? Can we remove the 'so-called' from in front? With video!." More...

The Master Narrative in Journalism: "Were 'winning' to somehow be removed or retired as the operating system for news, campaign reporting would immediately become harder to do, not because there would be no news, but rather no common, repeatable instructions for deciding what is a key development in the story, a turning point, a surprise, a trend. Master narratives are thus harder to alter than they are to apprehend. For how do you keep the story running while a switch is made?" More...

He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User "Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who's faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in." More...

Users-Know-More-than-We-Do Journalism: "It's a "put up or shut up" moment for open source methods in public interest reporting. Can we take good ideas like... distributed knowledge, social networks, collaborative editing, the wisdom of crowds, citizen journalism, pro-am reporting... and put them to work to break news?" More...

Introducing NewAssignment.Net: "Enterprise reporting goes pro-am. Assignments are open sourced. They begin online. Reporters working with smart users and blogging editors get the story the pack wouldn't, couldn't or didn't." More...

What I Learned from Assignment Zero "Here are my coordinates for the territory we need to be searching. I got them from doing a distributed trend story with Wired.com and thinking through the results." More...

If Bloggers Had No Ethics Blogging Would Have Failed, But it Didn't. So Let's Get a Clue: "Those in journalism who want to bring ethics to blogging ought to start with why people trust (some) bloggers, not with an ethics template made for a prior platform operating as a closed system in a one-to-many world." More...

The View From Nowhere: "Occupy the reasonable middle between two markers for 'vocal critic,' and critics look ridiculous charging you with bias. Their symmetrical existence feels like proof of an underlying hysteria. Their mutually incompatible charges seem to cancel each other out. The minute evidence they marshall even shows a touch of fanaticism." More...

Rollback: "This White House doesn't settle for managing the news--what used to be called 'feeding the beast'--because there is a larger aim: to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country." More...

Retreat from Empiricism: On Ron Suskind's Scoop: ""Realist, a classic term in foreign policy debates, and reality-based, which is not a classic term but more of an instant classic, are different ideas. We shouldn't fuzz them up. The press is capable of doing that because it never came to terms with what Suskind reported in 2004." More...

Karl Rove and the Religion of the Washington Press: "Savviness--that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, 'with it,' and unsentimental in all things political--is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. And it was this cult that Karl Rove understood and exploited for political gain." More...

Journalism Is Itself a Religion: "We're headed, I think, for schism, tumult and divide as the religion of the American press meets the upheavals in global politics and public media that are well underway. Changing around us are the terms on which authority can be established by journalists. The Net is opening things up, shifting the power to publish around. Consumers are becoming producers, readers can be writers." More...

News Turns from a Lecture to a Conversation: "Some of the pressure the blogs are putting on journalists shows up, then, in the demand for "news as conversation," more of a back-and-forth, less of a pronouncement. This is an idea with long roots in academic journalism that suddenly (as in this year) jumped the track to become part of the news industry's internal dialogue." More...

Two Washington Posts May Be Better Than One: "They're not equals, but Washington and Arlington have their own spheres. Over the newspaper and reporting beats Len Downie is king. Over the website Jim Brady is sovereign. Over the userï¿½s experience no one has total control. There's tension because there's supposed to be tension." More...

Laying the Newspaper Gently Down to Die: "An industry that won't move until it is certain of days as good as its golden past is effectively dead, from a strategic point of view. Besides, there is an alternative if you don't have the faith or will or courage needed to accept reality and deal. The alternative is to drive the property to a profitable demise." More...

Grokking Woodward: "Woodward and Bernstein of 1972-74 didn't have such access, and this probably influenced--for the better--their view of what Nixon and his men were capable of. Watergate wasn't broken by reporters who had entree to the inner corridors of power. It was two guys on the Metro Desk." More...

Maybe Media Bias Has Become a Dumb Debate: "This here is a post for practically everyone in the game of seizing on media bias and denouncing it, which is part of our popular culture, and of course a loud part of our politics. And this is especially for the 'we're fair and balanced, you're not' crowd, wherever I may have located you." More...

Bill O'Reilly and the Paranoid Style in News: "O'Reilly feeds off his own resentments--the establishment sneering at Inside Edition--and like Howard Beale, the 'mad prophet of the airwaves,' his resentments are enlarged by the medium into public grievances among a mass of Americans unfairly denied voice." More...

Thoughts on the Killing of a Young Correspondent: "Among foreign correspondents, there is a phrase: 'parachuting in.' That's when a reporter drops into foreign territory during an emergency, without much preparation, staying only as long as the story remains big. The high profile people who might parachute in are called Bigfoots in the jargon of network news. The problem with being a Bigfoot, of course, is that it's hard to walk in other people's shoes." More...

The News From Iraq is Not Too Negative. But it is Too Narrow: "The bias charges are getting more serious lately as the stakes rise in Iraq and the election. But there is something lacking in press coverage, and it may be time for wise journalists to assess it. The re-building story has gone missing. And without it, how can we judge the job Bush is doing?." More...

The Abyss of Observation Alone. "There are hidden moral hazards in the ethic of neutral observation and the belief in a professional 'role' that transcends other loyalties. I think there is an abyss to observation alone. And I feel it has something to do with why more people don't trust journalists. They don't trust that abyss." More...

"Find Some New Information and Put it Into Your Post." Standards for Pro-Am Journalism at OffTheBus: "Opinion based on information 'everyone' has is less valuable than opinion journalism based on information that you dug up, originated, or pieced together. So it’s not important to us that contributors keep opinion out. What’s important is that they put new information in. More...

Out in the Great Wide Open: Maybe you heard about the implosion of Wide Open, a political blog started by the Cleveland Plain Dealer with four "outside" voices brought in from the ranks of Ohio bloggers: two left, two right. Twelve points you may not have seen elsewhere." More...

Some Bloggers Meet the Bosses From Big Media: "What capacity for product development do news organizations show? Zip. How are they on nurturing innovation? Terrible. Is there an entreprenurial spirit in newsrooms? No. Do smart young people ever come in and overturn everything? Never." More...

Notes and Comment on BlogHer 2005 "I think the happiest conference goers at BlogHer were probably the newbies, people who want to start blogging or just did. They got a lot of good information and advice. Some of the best information was actually dispensed in response to the fears provoked by blogging, which shouldnï¿½t be avoided, the sages said, but examined, turned around, defused, and creatively shrunk.." More...

Top Ten List: What's Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism? "The weblog comes out of the gift economy, whereas most of today's journalism comes out of the market economy." More...

A Second Top Ten List: What's Conservative About the Weblog Form in Journalism? "The quality of any weblog in journalism depends greatly on its fidelity to age old newsroom commandments like check facts, check links, spell things correctly, be accurate, be timely, quote fairly." More...

Blogging is About Making and Changing Minds: "Sure, weblogs are good for making statements, big and small. But they also force re-statement. Yes, they're opinion forming. But they are equally good at unforming opinion, breaking it down, stretching it out." More...

The Weblog: An Extremely Democratic Form in Journalism "It's pirate radio, legalized; it's public access coming closer to life. Inside the borders of Blogistan (a real place with all the problems of a real place) we're closer to a vision of 'producer democracy' than we are to any of the consumerist views that long ago took hold in the mass media, including much of the journalism presented on that platform." More...

No One Owns Journalism: "And Big Media doesn't entirely own the press, because if it did then the First Amendment, which mentions the press, would belong to Big Media. And it doesn't. These things were always true. The weblog doesn't change them. It just opens up an outlet to the sea. Which in turn extends 'the press' to the desk in the bedroom of the suburban mom, where she blogs at night." More...

Brain Food for BloggerCon: Journalism and Weblogging in Their Corrected Fullness "Blogging is one universe. Its standard unit is the post, its strengths are the link and the low costs of entry, which means lots of voices. Jounalism is another universe. Its standard unit is "the story." Its strengths are in reporting, verification and access-- as in getting your calls returned." More...

Dispatches From the Un-Journalists: "Journalists think good information leads to opinion and argument. It's a logical sequence. Bloggers think that good argument and strong opinion cause people to seek information, an equally logical sequence. What do the bloggers bring to this? My short answer to the press is: everything you have removed."More...

Political Jihad and the American Blog: Chris Satullo Raises the Stakes "Journalists, you can stop worrying about bloggers 'replacing' the traditional news media. We're grist for their mill, says Satullo, a mill that doesn't run without us. Bloggers consume and extend the shelf life of our reporting, and they scrutinize it at a new level of intensity.."More...

Raze Spin Alley, That Strange Creation of the Press: "Spin Alley, an invention of the American press and politicos, shows that the system we have is in certain ways a partnership between the press and insiders in politics. They come together to mount the ritual. An intelligent nation is entitled to ask if the partners are engaged in public service when they bring to life their invention... Alternative thesis: they are in a pact of mutual convenience that serves no intelligible public good." More...

Horse Race Now! Horse Race Tomorrow! Horse Race Forever!: "How is it you know you're the press? Because you have a pass that says PRESS, and people open the gate. The locker room doors admit you. The story must be inside that gate; that's why they give us credentials. We get closer. We tell the fans what's going on. And if this was your logic, Bill James tried to bust it. Fellahs, said he to the baseball press, you have to realize that you are the gate." More...

Psst.... The Press is a Player: "The answer, I think, involves an open secret in political journalism that has been recognized for at least 20 years. But it is never dealt with, probably because the costs of facing it head on seem larger than the light tax on honesty any open secret demands. The secret is this: pssst... the press is a player in the campaign. And even though it knows this, as everyone knows it, the professional code of the journalist contains no instructions in what the press could or should be playing for?" More...

Die, Strategy News: "I think it's a bankrupt form. It serves no clear purpose, has no sensible rationale. The journalists who offer us strategy news do not know what public service they are providing, why they are providing it, for whom it is intended, or how we are supposed to use this strange variety of news."More...

He Said, She Said, We Said: "When journalists avoid drawing open conclusions, they are more vulnerable to charges of covert bias, of having a concealed agenda, of not being up front about their perspective, of unfairly building a case (for, against) while pretending only to report 'what happened.'" More...

If Religion Writers Rode the Campaign Bus: "Maybe irony, backstage peaking and "de-mystify the process" only get you so far, and past that point they explain nothing. Puzzling through the convention story, because I'm heading right into it myself, made me to realize that journalism's contempt for ritual was deeply involved here. Ritual is newsless; therefore it must be meaningless. But is that really true?."More...

Convention Coverage is a Failed Regime and Bloggers Have Their Credentials: "No one knows what a political convention actually is, anymore, or why it takes 15,000 people to report on it. Two successive regimes for making sense of the event have collapsed; a third has not emerged. That's a good starting point for the webloggers credentialed in Boston. No investment in the old regime and its ironizing." More...

Philip Gourevitch: Campaign Reporting as Foreign Beat: "'A presidential election is a like a gigantic moving television show,' he said. It is the extreme opposite of an overlooked event. The show takes place inside a bubble, which is a security perimeter overseen by the Secret Service. If you go outside the bubble for any reason, you become a security risk until you are screened again by hand."More...

What Time is it in Political Journalism? "Adam Gopnik argued ten years ago that the press did not know who it was within politics, or what it stood for. There was a vacuum in journalism where political argument and imagination should be. Now there are signs that this absence of thought is ending." More...

Off the Grid Journalism: “The assignment was straightforward enough,” writes Marjie Lundstrom of the Sacramento Bee, “talk to people.” When a writer dissents from it or departs from it, the master narrative is a very real thing. Here are two examples: one from politics, one from music. More...

Questions and Answers About PressThink "The Web is good for many opposite things. For quick hitting information. For clicking across a field. For talk and interaction. It's also a depth finder, a memory device, a library, an editor. Not to use a weblog for extended analysis (because most users won't pick that option) is Web dumb but media smart. What's strange is that I try to write short, snappy things, but they turn into long ones." More...

If you read my comments to Professor Rosen's work, posted on my blog, you'll find that a number of other PR bloggers wrote about this.

Professor Rosen's saying that "PR bloggers are missing in action" is/was false. Your repeating it isn't much better.

Regards.

Posted by: Marc Snyder at January 20, 2005 1:01 PM | Permalink

Marc:

Thanks for your comments. I commend your list of PR bloggers who made excellent initial comments about Ketchum's role and about the response of PR industry associations. Many of the bloggers you recommend are on my list--although my Spanish is shaky enough that I stuck to English.

Do our lists demonstrate, however, that few bloggers have continued to press the larger issues called into question by Ketchum's agreement with the DOE beyond their initial posts? (Other than Richard Edelman and Jeremy Pepper, that is.) Does this mean the lobby's tepid responses are acceptable? I agree with you that they are not. I am eager to see whether and how PR bloggers will continue to provide industry leadership, which seems essential given Ketchum/Omnicom's size and influence. These are questions that The New York Times' Stuart Elliot and various Washington Post reporters are pursuing in a measured, valuable way.

This discussion may also call into question a number of the points that Rebecca MacKinnon makes in this post about the conference she has helped organize at Harvard this weekend. I'm particularly interested in her questions about our roles and responsibilities as bloggers. For example, can we (as news bloggers and/or as PR bloggers) provide leadership to media commentators and colleagues by disclosing all of our business and personal relationships? What's appropriate? What's necessary?

Here's an excerpt from MacKinnon's FAQ:

Q: Are you trying to set ethical standards for all bloggers?
A: No, we definitely are not. However, we are very interested in the ethical questions surrounding the process of blogging. For instance: How much about yourself do you need to disclose (personally, financially, and politically) as an independent blogger - or as a journalist who blogs for a news organization - if you are going to be deemed credible by the public over the long run? Other questions: Is linking different than quoting? If a news organization links to an independent blogger who was blogging the tsunami but who then suddenly posts libellous photoshopped pictures of local politicians in the midst of scandalous acts, is that news organization liable? There are questions about whether a community might deem certain online (or offline) information to be "credible" even when it is not, actually true. (Large parts of the world still believe Israel's Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks, for example.) What influences the public's decisions over what they think is or isn't credible - from mainstream media or from blogs? How much does that have to do with fact? Then there's the question of how you make money while credibly and responsibly informing the public over the long run?"

I look forward to your thoughts

Posted by: Lisa Stone at January 20, 2005 1:36 PM | Permalink

Yes, I had "other priorities" -- important ones at that -- but why be so dismissive? And why not link to my post about the issues, where I explained those priorities (and why I thought I SHOULD have posted earlier anyways) vs. just to my blog itself?

I gave Jay the benefit of the doubt re: agenda pushing earlier today. Now I begin to wonder.

To those who care to actually review the "facts" of my silence, feel free to read my post here.

As for the "larger issues", I think you find most of us pushing for ethical practices of PR a great deal in our day-to-day posts. Not to mention that most of us have full time jobs beyond being PR's watchdogs/reporters...if that is a role we want/choose to play.

I'll reiterate what many others have said: Where is the PRSA and IABC on this one?

Posted by: Elizabeth Albrycht at January 20, 2005 3:11 PM | Permalink

Elizabeth:

Thank you for your comments. I just returned from my own full-time job to updated this post with your extensive remarks and those of the other PR bloggers I used as a starter list of the Top 12. (And while I can excerpt, even extensively, I encourage readers to read your complete comments as you present them on your blog.)

I'm eager to hear how you would improve the list of questions above -- perhaps for the PRSA and IABC?

Posted by: Lisa Stone at January 20, 2005 6:58 PM | Permalink

1.) Has or hasn't Ketchum been fined or censured for using taxpayer money for its role in both the Medicare VNR and DOE/Williams media campaigns criticized by the GAO? Why/why not?

As far as I know they have not been fined or censured. There is a reason for this, it is known as due process of law. Tried in the media remains a figure of speech. The federal government does not fine people or institutions on the basis of negative press.

You ask some other very good questions. I hope you will follow up and report back to the rest of us. Press Think is not our assignment desk, as I wrote on my blog with some force.

I suspect future stories will come neither from traditional media or blogosphere but from the office of Rep. Louis Slaughter.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at January 20, 2005 8:46 PM | Permalink

excuse me for interjecting here, but as your basic average american, I think you need to know something.

When we hear the words "Public Relations", what we perceive is "Liar".

Okay, maybe "Liar" is too strong...but the average person knows two thing when they talk to a public relations person,

The first thing is that nothing a PR person says can be trusted.

The second thing is that the PR person is there to keep the company decision-makers from having to deal with the public.

The average american would probably think that what Ketchum did was not scandalous for a PR firm to do. They expect this kind of thing from PR firms.

I mean, I'm reading all of this stuff and thinking "Don't these people realize that 'PR' has an image problem?" The irony is so thick I get dizzy considering all of its various permutations.

Posted by: paul_lukasiak at January 20, 2005 9:26 PM | Permalink

I suggest you put the UPDATE "above the fold" on your index page (move your continue reading link to after the update).

Also, I'd like to link my comment to the previous post here as well.

I find it interesting that Jay is "calling out" PR bloggers after defending "bloggers rights" to write (or not write) about what they wanted.

Posted by: Sisyphus at January 20, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink

Alas. You didn't find as interesting my explanation for it, where I admit that my claim on the writing agenda of any individual blogger is weak.

"What is a PR blogger, and what are they supposed to be doing? I can't say we know the answers to that. It's hard to tell any individual blogger what to write about, where to link. And I am not offering my criticisms at that level. The answer may simply be: "There are a small number of bloggers covering PR, they all have other lives, other interests. They're not full time bloggers. Give them a break."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 20, 2005 11:46 PM | Permalink

Jay: "Alas. You didn't find as interesting my explanation for it, where I admit that my claim on the writing agenda of any individual blogger is weak."

Quite the contrary, I found that just as interesting. Was that your attempt at rowback? Go in strong and accusatory and at the end pull an Emily Litella, "Never mind"?

I find it very interesting to compare your, and Jeff Jarvis', response to people who called you out in the initial days of the CBS News/60 Minutes Wednesday fiasco and what you wrote about the PR bloggers.

It's not that your claim was weak. You were adamant before that any claim was a violation of a blogger's right to control the content of her blog.

Posted by: Sisyphus at January 21, 2005 1:27 AM | Permalink

I also find it interesting to contrast that ideal, a blogger's right to control the content of her blog, with Gillmor's, "My Readers Know More Than I Do."

Posted by: Sisyphus at January 21, 2005 1:33 AM | Permalink

Alice Marshall:

Touche--I mean to imply that GAO reports are documents that often trigger official processes (such as hearings in Congress, disciplinary proceedings within government agencies, etcetera) that reach beyond media coverage.

Thanks, I'm glad you think some of these questions are very good. Hat-tip to Trevor Cook, who suggests improving the list here.

Posted by: Lisa Stone at January 21, 2005 1:43 AM | Permalink

Indeed, I am still adamant. Bloggers have an absolute right to control what they say at their blog. PR bloggers, Jarvis-style bloggers, me, you-- everyone.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 21, 2005 2:33 AM | Permalink

Thank you Lisa for adding my thoughts to After Matter. You too Jay.

Paul - believe me, I am well aware that PR has an image problem. I have been working in it and fighting it for 15 years.

For the record:

1) I've never knowingly lied for a company (I've been lied to more than once).
2) My business has been more about trying very hard to get press to talk to the companies I represent, not the other way around (I specialize in start-ups).

Given that I own a small agency, and I work with small companies, the kinds of budgets these types of activities require (buying off journos) is not remotely an option for me (and I wouldn't do it if it was).

The questions Lisa raises are important ones, particularly as the lines between inside/corporate and outside/commentator (journo, blogger, etc.) continue to blur. The ethical situation here is getting murkier and deserves hard thought.

I intend to focus some of my efforts in 2005 to trying to understand the growing complicatedness of persuasion and influence. I hope you'll join me.

Posted by: Elizabeth Albrycht at January 21, 2005 5:46 AM | Permalink

I know alot of the bloggers that were called out by Jay in his original post, and that you list here (and who have commented). We all blog for different reasons, and blog in different styles. And, for the most part, we do what we do because we want to change certain practices or highlight new tools.

The call for IABC, PRSA et al to take a stand is important, but if they fail us by playing it safe to their constituents, hopefully the grass roots take over.

That was my (hopefully) last post on Ketchum for awhile...

And, I'll join you Elizabeth.

Posted by: Jeremy at January 21, 2005 10:48 AM | Permalink

Elizabeth, you can count me in too. You describe exactly the reason I looked into this story--and nothing concerns me more:

"as the lines between inside/corporate and outside/commentator (journo, blogger, etc.) continue to blur. The ethical situation here is getting murkier and deserves hard thought."

Posted by: Lisa Stone at January 21, 2005 11:17 AM | Permalink

"Here are a number of questions that occurred to me --someone with only an outsider's perspective and no industry expertise--as I researched this story."

What's the best way to go about getting answers to these questions?

And to generalize - as an outsider with no industry expertise, how do you find out what an industry's standard practices are?

(BTW, with respect to the PR industry, one insider's perspective is blogged here)

Posted by: Anna at January 21, 2005 4:07 PM | Permalink

Strategic Public Relations: Why Isn't Ketchum Blogging? Good question: Meanwhile, Trevor Cook put this in the comments: "An excellent piece - very enjoyable. And I do appreciate your longer more reflective pieces. Plus I think your thinking reflects deep engagement with the world as it is lived while some of the analysis of Rosen and others tends to have the outsider's rush to judgment."

Which "rush" to which judgment would that be?

Trevor: I think you are spinning.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 22, 2005 9:55 AM | Permalink

Anna:

You asked: "What's the best way to go about getting answers to these questions? And to generalize - as an outsider with no industry expertise, how do you find out what an industry's standard practices are?"

I just ask. I ask everyone I think has some expertise in the field. And I always conclude by asking, what's missing from my questions? What/who/how I should be asking that I'm not? So I'll be consistent: How would you improve this approach, Anna?

Here's an example of someone who's asking excellent questions akin to some I raised above: Journalist Michael Meckler blogged today on Red-State.com about a letter he sent Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball. In the letter, Meckler takes Matthews to task for Ketchum executive Susan Molinari's appearance on his show Thursday night. Ms. Molinari, as I mention above, is also a former GOP Congresswoman--her financial benefit from lauding the Bush Administration as an inaugural commentator (in the form of more Ketchum contracts) was not disclosed to viewers. Here's an excerpt from Meckler's email to Matthews--and I urge you read the whole thing:

"I cannot believe that you are not aware that Susan Molinari heads up the Washington office of the public relations firm Ketchum, which is at the center of controversy over whether the Bush administration has been using propaganda tactics to promote controversial government programs. Ketchum is the firm that paid conservative black pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 to plug the benefits of No Child Left Behind from a reported $1 million contract with the Education Department. Ketchum also devised video press releases on Medicare for Health and Human Services, videos designed to look like news stories and which the GAO last year called "covert propaganda." "
"You may well reckon that getting political commentary from someone whose public relations firm is currently receiving business from the Bush administration is no different from getting commentary from campaign staffers or political officeholders, and that Molinari's background as a former GOP congresswoman was sufficient to indicate her political viewpoint. But the fact that she has a strong financial incentive in promoting the Bush administration through her employment with Ketchum is an item that needed to be mentioned. Representatives of PR firms appearing on your sister channel CNBC would have to make such a disclosure."

More here.

Posted by: Lisa Stone at January 24, 2005 11:43 PM | Permalink

A follow-up on my comment above:

Here we appear to have a scenario in which one journalist--Michael Meckler, a regular opinion columnist for a regional daily newspaper, The Columbus Dispatch--is holding another journalist--Chris Matthews, the host of a nationally televised cable television news show, Hardball, and anchor of MSNBC's election coverage through 2006--accountable for the way he does his job.

I haven't watched Hardball's Jan. 20 inaugural coverage (transcript apparently unavailable here). According to this Google search on Ms. Molinari, Mr. Matthews and Hardball, it appears that the former Congresswoman has been asked to comment on Hardball since 1999, the first year of the show. Ms. Molinari became President and CEO of Ketchum's lobbying firm, The Washington Group in October, 2001. She was also named President of the company's public affairs unit, Ketchum Public Affairs, in 2004.

To Mr. Meckler's point, I don't know whether Ms. Molinari was ever identified as an executive with a company that is a major vendor for the current presidential administration--either on MSNBC or when she appeared as a special commentator on CNBC's Capital Report during the 2004 primaries.

I think I'll begin work on some more questions.

Posted by: Lisa Stone at January 25, 2005 12:43 AM | Permalink