My guest post on CommPro.biz last week – Stop Pillorying PR: Let’s Call Out Crappy Reporting for a Change – seems to have connected with readers. It’s received 17 comments to date, with many sharing my view that reporting standards have really declined in the past few years.
However, I also received a public rebuke from James Zambroski. Zambroski published a response piece for CommPro.biz attempting to refute my points. In Another Aggrieved PR Person: In the Name of the Late Rodney King – Can We All Get Along?, he misrepresents portions of my piece and takes some snarky digs at me personally.
I enjoy a vigorous debate, and I try to learn from opposing viewpoints that are well made and supported. But there’s nothing to learn here, and I felt compelled to publish the following comment to Zambroski’s diatribe. It’s long, but there was a great deal to cover:
James — I’m glad my editorial spurred you to write a response. I’ve no problem with you not agreeing with me. But for someone who says “I hesitate to get into a tit-for-tat on this subject,” you certainly go after me with gusto.
Let me respond to a few points:
1. You say that the problems in the Acohido story were “tiny, rhymes with whiny.” I say that a single sourced story by a reporter like Acohido is poor work, as is not identifying that the executive had just recently jumped from the competitor he was criticizing in the story. You don’t agree. OK. Reasonable people may disagree – let’s take your advice and just get along.
2. You claim “there was no response from USA Today because the ombudsman deemed (as did I) that the alleged errors were non-existent, open to interpretation or minor.” You may want to read my editorial again. I make it very clear there was a response from Acohido’s editor. I didn’t think it was satisfactory, but I’m plain there was a response.
Perhaps you wrote there was no response to try and strengthen your negative take on my complaint?
3. You attack my ethics for considering the interests of clients: “Make sure your reaction is in strategy for the client—is the media source worth responding to? Where are the ethics in that? If, as the title herein suggests, the idea is to “call out crappy reporting for a change,” then how can you justify picking and choosing?”
Of course I have to consider the goals of my client — what professional communicator does not? Here your naivete is really showing. I see from your bio you are attempting to switch to the PR side of the street. If you don’t think you’ll have to work within the bounds of client interests, you’ll be sorely disillusioned if you find a job.
4. The paragraph you dedicate to saying that journalism can police itself is anecdotal and unpersuasive. You tell us you did it at the Courier-Journal, so it’s a “trust us, we’ll police ourselves” situation?
5. You say “And then, in the last six paragraphs of the piece, Mr. Parente positions mainstream media as really not being worth the time. If that’s true, where’s the beef?”
What I said was there is a much more productive way to communicate on behalf of a client today. Content marketing is much more effective than media outreach. It was also important to share with the readers why I was able to take this course of action.
You may want to check the comment thread on my editorial. I have a number of readers with media backgrounds voicing agreement with my piece, including the main point about the declining quality of reporting.
Despite the personal tone of some of his comments — “rhymes with whiny,” “where are the ethics?” — I tried hard to keep my comment focused and professional in tone. I simply don’t understand how this guy could think this editorial puts him in a positive light. Especially if he wants to segue to the PR side of the fence for employment, as his author blurb states.
I’m going to reach out to some trade reporters and see if I can get their perspectives. That would add a new, more constructive dimension to this debate.