Penn State fires Paterno, students riot: 5 media lessons learned
When I worked for a PR trade publisher, I always loathed this editorial approach, and my refusal to follow it contributed to my leaving the PR trade publisher.
It's the publishing equivalent of ambulance-chasing, a way to get a lot of traffic by having a faux-topical story. In SEO, topical beats relevant every time. But man does not live on SEO alone.
It's either intellectually mediocre, or condescending. It either says: Whatever everybody's talking about is what everybody should be talking about. Or it says: Our readers are intellectually mediocre and all they want to read on our site is a spin on the same gossip shit they're reading everywhere else.
It's wantonly atavistic. You can see the same story appearing in other trade publications: Penn State fires Paterno, students riot: 5 legal lessons learned … Penn State fires Paterno, students riot: 5 insurance lessons learned … Penn State fires Paterno, students riot: 5 law enforcement lessons learned … Penn State fires Paterno, students riot: 5 coaching lessons learned … Penn State fires Paterno, students riot: 5 human resources lessons learned … and on an gratuitously on.
Mostly, it's flat lazy. Instead of getting to know every single practitioner in your field and finding out about the unknown amazing shit that's happening behind the opaque corporate walls and revealing those brilliant ideas to amazed practitioner—the hard and unrewarding work that also contributed to my leaving the PR trade publisher—you just pick up on whatever's in the news today and poll industry bystanders, who say all the obvious things for the story tomorrow.
This stuff sucks, folks. And when you see it, you should let the publisher know you know you're onto them. Becauase they seriously don't know that you are.
Sorry, David, but I just don’t get your indignation over this.
For one thing, using current events to illustrate PR principles helps people learn. A good teacher connects the unfamiliar to the familiar. I use this technique with my PR students. When I simply talk about principles, their eyes glaze over. But when I bring a real-world example into the picture, they become interested and connect to the material I’m trying to teach them. Same is true of professionals.
And second, it “helps sell papers,” or in this instance, mouse clicks. What’s so wrong with enticing readers into your story by connecting it with something that’s on everyone’s minds?
Sure, uncovering those unsung hero stories is great if you have the time, but there’s room for current events too. I rather enjoy reading what other PR pros have to say. It opens my eyes to perspectives other than my own.
No, there’s nothing inherently wrong with using mainstream media stories to illustrate PR lessons. It’s just that you ought to pick stories that will lend true insights to public relations practitioners.
These stories do come along: Watergate, The Tylenol-poisoning case, the Exxon Valdez (and BP!), Monica Lewinski, Tiger Woods.
All those stories offered the same commonsense lessons: Cover-ups don’t work, admit when you’re wrong, say you’re sorry, promise to do better.
Now: The Penn State scandal might help us better appreciate the imbecility of the college campus culture, might remind us how insanely important sports are even in so-called “higher-learning” institutions and … if we’re really lucky and really careful, it might lead to some kind of oh-I-don’t-know–whistleblowing reform?
But is the Penn State scandal going to provide new insights for public relations people?
Nope, just gossip and the usual sense of, “If I was Penn State’s PR director, I’d have done it so much better.”
If you like to feel that way–and who doesn’t?–then I guess your trade publisher should keep giving you what you want.
But it’s not good for you.
P.S. Your PR students are 19 and just learning about this stuff for the first time. You are … not. You’ve been through your own PR wars, read hundreds of communication case studies–and written a few–and been to dozens of conferences. I’d expect your taste to be a little more developed and your appetite for public relations “insights” a more discerning.
Well, nothing like being told you have undeveloped taste and lack of discernment in a public forum. This might be why I’ve been the only one to comment on this so far, but I suspect many others share my opinion.
Actually, my PR students are juniors and seniors and we did have a healthy discussion in our class last week about this case. We touched on crisis communication, the consultative role of PR professionals and PR ethics, each of which is relevant to the Penn State case. My students seem to appreciate both my developed taste and discernment as well as the nearly 25 years of corporate and consulting experience I bring to the table.
I suppose when you lack a depth of corporate experience, attacking the credentials of others is about the best you can do.
So, what did you tell them about the Penn State case, and the consultative role of PR professionals and PR ethics?
Oh–nothing really, because you have no idea what was happening in the PR offices at Penn State, no idea what the PR people knew, when they knew it, what they advised and whether they were listened to?
I would that that if anything, the 25 years of corporate experience that I don’t have and you do, would make you AGREE with my point that every corp comms situation is hugely complex, politically rife, personality driven and logistically fraught.
So much so, that Monday-morning quarterbacking from the outside is usually shadows on a cave wall: as unreliable, and as shallow.
Again, we all do it anyway–just like we all eat candy and drink beer. Again: That doesn’t mean it’s good for us.
I guess I have undeveloped taste and lack discernment as well. As a relative newcomer to PR, and working in higher education, this story is of great interest to me. It’s true that we don’t know a lot about what’s happening internally, but my interest in the story isn’t who’s to blame for any missteps (or praise for any positive moves). It’s to think through how my organization might respond in a similar situation, what pitfalls to avoid, what opportunities to seize.
That said, the particular story you referenced is not a good example of the kind of stuff that can be helpful. At least I found it pretty shallow and not all that related to PR.
I guess I’m forced to concede the point that a newbie in the field would be interested in such a story, especially if it’s about an institution in a similar industry.
Still, I believe that Penn State’s public relations response to this horrendous nightmare is of very limited application (without deep knowledge of whether the PR people had any real influence here or not) to anyone else.
So far, I’m thinking that based on this, other university PR people should prepare for such a shocking emergency by: making sure their institution isn’t mentally ill as Penn State seems to have been … and getting plenty of sleep.
Out of genuine curiosity, Kent, what have you come up with in your own thinking about the Penn State? Are you going to give any recommendations to your bosses?
You made a good point earlier in that the lessons are fairly obvious: come clean early, promise to do better, then actually do better. The only real misstep on the university’s part in my mind was Spanier’s initial statement, which gave minimal lip service to the seriousness of the alleged crimes and went to great lengths to defend the integrity of his AD and VP. Some of Paterno’s statements were pretty bad too, but good luck trying to tell how coaches what to say.
Rather than simply tell my students what to think, I prefer to get them thinking, often about things they’ve never considered before, such as:
* What would be the first thing a PR person in such a situation do?
* What questions should they ask, and of whom?
* When should an organization in such a situation make a statement, or should they?
* And if so, what should that statement say?
* What should the statement not say?
* What if the PR professional’s counsel contradicts that of legal counsel?
* If the organization is found to have violated ethical standards or the law, what should a PR professional do in that case?
These questions are not only good for PR students to ponder and discuss — against the backdrop of an actual case — but for professionals too. The point is not to quarterback from the sidelines, but to bring alive an otherwise boring conversation by looking at real-world applications. If that makes my tastes undeveloped and my discernment lacking, I’ll take it.
Robert, what you lack in taste and discernment, you make up for in petulance.
(And I know petulance.)
David, honestly, I’m reading ” It’s just that you ought to pick stories that will lend true insights to public relations practitioners” and I don’t see how this topic is just that.
Some days you’re on, some days you’re off. I fear that today is an “off” day.
“Is just that, or isn’t just that.”
(And if I was off, it was yesterday. Not today. Today, I’m on like Donkey Kong.)
David, by taking a swipe at Ragan for publishing the article that so offends you, aren’t you engaging in exactly the kind of armchair quarterbacking of which you accuse them?
Let’s face it, we bloggers are all armchair quarterbacks at one time or another. You comb the industry press and the daily headlines for things to criticize and for current events that help illustrate your points just as any good blogger would do. It’s really disingenuous of you to blast another website for doing the same.
Um, clearly my point was NOT that no one should ever comment upon what’s on another website.
This editorial argument that I’ve had with Ragan and other publishers has gone on for many years. They like to follow on the news, because it’s “topical.”
I think news-following stories are typically much more shallow, less useful and less truly relevant to the day-to-day PR pro than stories generated by other means.
(The Ragan story I picked on being a really good example of the weightless bullshit I was talking about. This one being another, about “How to avoid a Rick Perry brain freeze” http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/43957
So no, Robert. Ragan’s dumb piece about Penn State is different from my piece (however dumb) about Ragan’s dumb piece.
There’s that darned discernment deficit of yours acting up again!
Namecalling. I loathe that editorial approach.
Amy, no one has actually called anybody names, but I agree we’re at the point in this particular online pissing match where I’m left with no choice but to simply zip up the trousers and walk off.
Dave, Dave, Dave…
I don’t even know why i read this thread, other than that i was confused by your point of view on this horrid issue. I will tell you to maybe watch out for your ego…it seems to prevent your ears from hearing.. Alot of your friends have points of view that are very interesting and seem valid to us non-intellectual plebians who are looking to smart writers to put words to our thoughts? Anyway…Mr. Holland…you seem smart to me! We all have to be somewhat humble in the face of the talent of others…so, I am humbly speaking my mind! Take a shot at me if you want…i can take it!
“It opens my mind to perspectives other than my own”
Pretty simple… and well said!
Thanks for reminding all of us,
Mr.Robert Holland! (That is the essence of a humble spirit)!
Laura:
Do you read a trade publication? Something specific to your work, that tells you stuff that only people who know your business would care about? Gives you information that you could only get out of a trade publication?
Now imagine if that same publication started suddenly trying to tie in every sensational news story to find the “heating and cooling angle.” Usually, that’s going to be some gratuitous bullshit, and if you’re not naive, you’re naturally going to be suspicious of it.
If PR is different from a trade like heating and cooling, it’s because PR people think they and their ilk know best in just about every public crisis, and that their peers have enlightening shit to say about every matter under the sun. And about that, they’re often dead-ass wrong.
Look, I’ve made my case as well as I can, and not very many people agree with me. If Robert and others find these sorts of stories compelling for the most part, then trade publishers should pay NO NEVERMIND to my mad ravings. (Which I’m sure they’re busy doing as we speak.)
I do, however, hold fast to my belief that these kinds of news-following stories are usually less substantive and less TRULY USEFUL than stories generated in other ways.
And I WON’T be humbly reminded, by you or anyone else, of the importance of “opening my mind to perspectives other than my own.” (For heaven’s sake.) Why in God’s name do you think I read from the moment I wake up in the morning, until the moment I start drinking?
Love to all, and to all a good fight.
OOPS…I was posting, and stupidly lost my comments…Forgive me if this is going through twice!
Anyway…I was saying that you have to know that I love you, no matter what…and I always am a big fan of your talent…and I respect your ability and point of view, always!
With that said…I have to tell you that no matter what we do, we have to be open, and I guess Humble! The other writers will challenge you…the other contractors will challenge me…and I say bring it ON! I can only be the best at what i do, if i am willing to see other points of view!
You must know this, or you wouldn’t be so great at your work…So.., hear me or don’t.
It’s really up to all of us to get out of the way of that stupid ego. Don’t turn into a close-minded jerk…just because you are smart and well-spoken! You, like all of us…need to “accept humble reminders of the importance of opening your mind to perspectives other than your own”…DUH…
No amount of reading can save you from yourself…if you can’t do that…”for heaven’s sake”!