By Greg Bailey, APR
It was a moment that usually only happens in a dream — great event, attendees smiling, happy client. Then out of nowhere, the client was ambushed.
The self-proclaimed investigative reporter – with stoic videographer in tow – slithered through the crowd, flashed the requisite pearly-white smile and proclaimed, “I just have to ask you a question.” Be assured, it had nothing to do with the tiny quiches or shrimp-on-a-stick being served.
There was no chance of stepping in and whisking the client away; the viper had struck. The client stuck to their guns – answered the question honestly and politely – knowing what would likely happen to the response in the editing room. This would be a story void of facts – a trademark of the reporter. It would be edited and broadcast to fit the reporter’s “crusading” agenda.
Even honest, hard-working reporters and editors used to joke that “you never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.” This reporter not only pays no attention to the facts; the end result is rarely a good story. Who would have ever dreamed that the old Cops and Hard Copy shows would become the model for today’s television news broadcasts?
What is so very troubling is that this type of lousy and less-than-truthful journalism comes out of a once-trailblazing newsroom that now has lost its luster and, quite often, spends way too much time in a back alley devising today’s quick-hit ratings grab. How sad and unfortunate it is that the TV viewer doesn’t recognize the severe manipulation of the facts.
Part of our responsibility as public relations professionals is to prepare clients to interact with the news media. We counsel our clients to tell their story honestly, good or bad. Then we must rely on the integrity of reporter on the other side of the notebook to deal in a fair and honest manner with the subject. When that does not happen, no correction in print, no apology on air, no phone call to an editor can change the false impression already left with the viewer or reader.
Our client was previously victimized by the ambushing reporter; the client knew what was coming, how to deal with it, and was fully aware of the end result that would appear on air.
Near the end of the event, the client and a handful of people, some former journalists, were talking about the ambush and the reporter’s tactics. Most of us agreed that we displayed our dislike of the approach by voting with our eyes and remote controls. We all agreed one thing: those newscasts don’t work for us anymore.