Now It's The Corporate PR Folks' Turn To Be Slammed

Just minutes after finishing this post defending PR bloggers, I opened my newsreader to find a link to a column by Boston Herald business writer Brett Arends that slams corporate communicators:

"What do these people do with their time? I suspect they spend it in long-running 'strategy meetings' and 'progress reviews,' and pointlessly editing in-house newsletters, glossy reports and non-news press releases that no one but them will ever read."

Arends is upset that corporate PR folks don't return his phone calls when their companies do something "genuinely newsworthy, like firing its CEO or being prosecuted by regulators," as he puts it.

And he's surprised why??

I've worked in corporate communications at three major companies -- two healthcare, one energy. One was a Fortune 50 company. In my years of experience, I never saw anyone in corporate PR hide from reporters, even during tough times.

But I sure saw plenty of shenanigans from reporters ... some that bordered on downright unethical:

• Reporters who lied and claimed to be family members to gain access to patients.
• Reporters who bragged about slipping on a lab coat so they could wander freely through the hospital.
• Reporters who said their story was about one thing ... but really had an entirely different focus in mind.
• Reporters who stomped their feet and shouted and fumed when things didn't go their way.
• Reporters who were so focused on getting a story that they disregarded the truth. And were brazen enough to tell PR people that the truth was "too complicated" for people to understand?

It's a two-way street. There are bad PR people, and bad reporters. But there are lots of folks in the middle who do their jobs well, and who understand the different roles they each play and the importance of relationships and communication.

I wonder how many phone calls Brett Arends returns each day? How much time does he make for PR people who call him? Is he only available when there's bad news?

Update: Upon re-reading my post, I realized that I needed to clarify my remarks ... I am not in any way saying that the columnist in question is responsible for any of the behavior I mentioned. Those are experiences that I've witnessed from some members of the media over my career.

My point is simply this: There are challenges on both sides of the PR-reporter relationship. But I doubt Arends did himself any favors with his column.

Thanks to PR Machine for the link.

Technorati Tags: PR, Public Relations, Boston Herald, Corporate Communications