PUBLIC relations and journalism are intertwined in today's capitalist-driven media industry. Media products, like newspapers, rely on paid advertisements for financial support. Corporations, meanwhile, use newspapers to reach out to readers and attract more customers. This process is not new to journalism, but as journalistic standards recede and capitalism takes control, the relationship is no longer healthy for media institutions in democratic societies.
General Motors Corporation, for instance, stopped its print advertising campaign with The Los Angeles Times on Thursday. The automakers cited "factual errors and misrepresentations in The Times editorial coverage." However, the day before GM's decision, the Automobile section released a scathing critique of the new Pontiac G6. In the article, automotive critic Dan Neil chastised the corporation's chairman and suggested the company focus more on fuel-efficient cars, instead of SUVs. The subtitle reads, "The Pontiac G6 is a sales flop. At General Motors, let the impeachment proceedings begin."
Although GM does not explicitly blame this particular critique for its advertising withdrawal, many media critics are concerned with corporate pressures of positive and biased reporting. A newspaper, however, has no responsibility to portray its advertisers in a positive light. To maintain its credibility and democratic functions, newspapers need to ignore corporate pressures and biases. In other words, the media should keep the editorial side separate from the commercial side.
Media publications also benefit from this strict separation and fair reporting -- reputable publications, like The New York Times, have higher readerships due to their credible journalistic commitments. In the short run, satisfying an advertiser's demands may seem more financially rational, but credibility is the newspaper's most important asset.
In critical sections, like Food, Automobiles, Travel or Style, advertisers should expect honest criticism. If newspapers attempt to tie critics' opinions to positive reviews, the institution of journalism, and the particular media product, would lose all authority in the respective field.
Large newspapers like The Los Angeles Times can afford to lose an advertiser and maintain its credible reporting. Yet smaller publications are poorly funded and need every possible advertiser in order to survive. Corporate America, therefore, also has a social responsibility to separate itself from editorial control.
In business situations, corporate executives have cost-benefit mentalities. For media advertising, businesses demonstrate to newspapers the monetary benefits of occupied advertising space. If this does not work, executives use their market power or clout to influence journalists' decisions. GM, for example, has the resources to potentially sway newspapers' editorial stances on automotive issues. Yet we should not support companies who utilize this pressure; it tarnishes our media environment and puts unnecessary pressures on journalists.
The Los Angeles Times admirably resisted these applied pressures, but many media publications could not afford to sacrifice advertising revenue for editorial control. Therefore, explicit agreements need to be drafted to separate public relations and journalistic realms. The former strives for market domination, more customers and profit success, whereas the latter also needs profits, but it has a unique responsibility to "fair and balanced" reporting. These two conflicting goals are not easily reconcilable in democratic institutions, and thereby a strict separation between the two is needed.
Consumers rely on media critics for car advice, restaurant recommendations and travel stories, to name a few. The media industry will lose much of its credibility (and therefore its readership) if advertisers force critics to respond positively to their products. Consumers must also accept some responsibility for preserving the "fair and balanced" standards of journalism. If we ignore corporate pressures to influence the media industry, we are tacitly consenting to news and opinions determined by those with the largest pocketbook.
It is easy for publications to espouse "objective" reporting, free of commercial interests and advertising pressures, but when a large patron threatens to pull its advertisements, the publication's credibility often succumbs to corporate America's ambitious attempts to control the media's editorial functions. We cannot allow this trend to continue, and therefore, consumers, readers, businesses and media institutions alike should demand strict separation between public relations and journalism.
Michael Behr's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mbehr@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrate the Contemplative Commons and other non-academic student spaces
By Editorial Board | 54 minutes agoThe Contemplative Commons stands as a testament to the value of spaces that transcend commercial imperatives, fostering interdisciplinary engagement and experiential learning.
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
