« The Wrong Message | Main | If You Want Free Trade, PR Is Essential Ingredient »
March 13, 2006
CNN Interview
Below is the transcript from an appearance I made yesterday morning on CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz. I was joined by Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine. We discussed the Edelman Wal-Mart blogger outreach. Howard also made sure to ask me about my quotes in last week's New York Observer.
------------------------
KURTZ: Welcome back.
For several years now, Wal-Mart has been beaten up in the press. Now America's largest retailer has a new strategy, according to a "New York Times" report this week, using bloggers to get its message out. But "The Times" story raised questions about whether some bloggers are just reprinting propaganda provided by Edelman, Wal-Mart's P.R. firm.
Joining us now to talk back to the media about his company's approach is Richard Edelman, chief executive of the public relations giant who maintains his own blog, and Jeff Jarvis, a veteran magazine editor who blogs at buzzmachine.com.
Welcome.
Richard Edelman, your firm, representing Wal-Mart, sent tips and information written in kind of breezy blog language to some pro-Wal- Mart bloggers, a few of whom printed it without disclosing the source.
Anything sneaky about that?
RICHARD EDELMAN, CEO, EDELMAN PR: Howard, I think the most important points are, one, we did acknowledge that it came from a P.R. firm.
Second, that we had a relationship with Wal-Mart.
Third, that we wanted to have a relationship with bloggers, that we were not interested in just having our material reprinted in any form.
And then, fourth, that we absolutely want Wal-Mart's story to be in a discussion, in a conversation. That's the essence of the blogosphere.
KURTZ: Why is it important for you to have a relationship with bloggers?
EDELMAN: Because we feel that it's part of the democratic process, that, in fact, it's the voices that are now yearning to be expressed. In fact, the Edelman trust barometer has shown definitively the rise of trust in a person like yourself, which is substituted for, in some cases, trust in traditional institutions, whether it's business, media or government.
KURTZ: Jeff Jarvis, do you see anything novel or troublesome here about Wal-Mart trying to use bloggers to get a positive message out?
JEFF JARVIS, BUZZMACHINE.COM: Howie, I think "The Times" story was a sucker punch against a few bloggers who didn't understand how to finesse this stuff. The story it really brought out is the relationship of the press to P.R..
Now, I advise bloggers in my blog that they should always reveal when a story comes from a P.R. agent, that they should reveal information that comes from P.R., and they should reveal any relationship, including lunches, that come from P.R. How many reporters do that? We don't.
How many stories -- we did an audit of a day's TV news, locally or here on CNN, or your paper or any other paper, and see how many stories actually started with P.R., how much information came from P.R. So what "The Times" was asking the bloggers to do, the press doesn't do. And that's a double standard.
And in this age of transparency, I think the real lesson is that the bloggers know how to be transparent, they'll push. A few didn't know. OK. Now we'll teach them how to do it better, and the press has to get better about transparency and its relationship with spin.
KURTZ: Richard Edelman, do you see "The Times" report as trying to hold bloggers to a higher standard than the mainstream media themselves when it comes to being completely forth right about where a story might have originated?
EDELMAN: Public relations has always been about telling the side of its client, but we only benefit when we're telling the truth. And I think that, absolutely, disclosure of source is critical, and in the event -- "The New York Times" I think did in this story have a double standard.
KURTZ: Now, Jeff Jarvis, what about some of these bloggers scooping Michael Barbaro of "The New York Times" on his own story after he had contacted them for comment? Is that fair or unfair? If I call you up and say, look, I'm doing a story, I want your comment, and then you put it on your blog before I can get it into print, I'm likely not to be too happy.
JARVIS: Tough. All is fair in love and press.
You know, I think the bigger -- the meta story going on here, Howie, not to get too academic -- is that we're seeing the death of the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers used to be those in power, then it was those in the press, and then -- yes, now it's P.R., who are gatekeepers to the powerful and the rich and the famous.
But now the people have the press. And I harp on this obnoxiously, I'll admit, but what it really means is that there's no scarcity anymore, and that we can push those in power to be transparent. And to not hold back information, which is what gatekeepers really do.
So for reporters acting as a gatekeeper, they're doing the wrong thing.
KURTZ: If gatekeepers don't have this kind of influence anymore, Richard Edelman, does that benefit public relations companies like yours?
EDELMAN: We believe that there's incredible dispersion of authority in the world, and we think that in order to achieve belief today, you have to have a story communicated multiple times. It is very important that traditional media cover a story to get trust, but also, the echo chamber that is, in fact, the blogosphere is urgent for companies and government and others to recognize and participate in.
KURTZ: But Jeff Jarvis, isn't there a danger that some bloggers -- and I'm a big fan of bloggers generally, as you know -- but could be compromised if they're seen as shills for a particular company or as passing on propaganda without, you know, explaining where it came from? Is it...
JARVIS: Sure.
KURTZ: Could that -- could that hurt bloggers? JARVIS: Sure, but I think there's two answers to that, Howie.
One is that we have to train bloggers in this, I think, and share that knowledge and share that concern. And so rather than going after and hitting them over the head with a stick, why don't you say, guys, here's a problem here?
But the other truth is that blogosphere is a much more self- correcting mechanism. If I seem to be shilling for Mr. Edelman, somebody can attack me right on my blog and question me about that and find out. I can't do that with a reporter at a big newspaper. It's not possible.
KURTZ: Richard Edelman, you recently had some things to say to the press at an awards dinner. You said, "You don't have a Walter Cronkite anymore. You're not god anymore." And you suggested that the -- that all this is making the job of public relations company easier because there's a decline in trust in the press.
Why is that?
EDELMAN: What I was trying to communicate was that any individual reporter cannot consider himself the be all and end all of source of information. That there's this cacophony out there, and that it's the opportunity, but also the responsibility of those of us in public relations to communicate with multiple sources of information -- traditional media, as well as the blogosphere.
KURTZ: But if people don't trust us, or fewer people trust us in the mainstream media, why should they trust you? Because, after all, your company is being paid by a client to put out a message.
EDELMAN: The point of this is not to say that public relations people should be trusted. It is that the information that they convey must be trustworthy, and that we must be very transparent about our motive. At the end point, it's either the blogger or the newspaper or television reporter who will communicate that information.
KURTZ: Jeff Jarvis, as a journalist or a recovering journalist, are you suspicious of public relations firms, whether they're dealing with the mainstream press or with bloggers?
JARVIS: Yes, always have been, Howie. That's our job, I think. And we recognize, as Richard just said, that it's their job to get the story of who is paying them across. And if they get back to that, I think that's more important.
I think that -- I was a --I was a, you know, TV critic during the days when media discovered the value of a famous face on the covers, and the P.R. people became the gatekeepers to those famous people. And that really made them ultra-powerful, which just changed from the press being ultra-powerful.
I think what we're seeing now is that the people have their own voice, and we can question the P.R. people the same way reporters should do. And people expect that, I think. KURTZ: So you are saying that not only did the press once have this great power to control information and who found out about what, but also often public relations companies, by controlling access to the stars for magazines covers, have that influence as well?
JARVIS: Right. And now we're in an age of transparency where the highest ethic is not objectivity or gate-keeping. The highest objectivity is openness.
KURTZ: All right. Well, we'll try to live up to that standard.
Posted by Edelman at March 13, 2006 3:33 PM |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/120
Comments
All these new opportunities to get our clients' messages out are dependent on the continued media exemption from FEC regulation and the preservation of the neutral internet. I hope you will have the opportunity to speak out on both of these issues that are so vital to PR blogosphere.
http://technoflak.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-is-political-blog.html
Posted by: Alice Marshall at March 15, 2006 12:49 PM
AM
I understand the precious legacy handed to those of us who participate in blogging. We have to ensure that we all push for quality and fact, while pushing back on those who would spin and obfuscate. The greatest danger is the demagogues who try to hold back the future.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at March 22, 2006 11:06 AM
Having Richard Edelman and other agency representatives interacting with academics is crucial in developing partnerships in public relations. In addition to an eight-hour foreign language requirement at Valparaiso University in the Arts and Sciences, there is an effort to bring more students into contact with other cultures. Valpo has campuses or a shared program in Africa, South America, Europe, and Asia. Students in public relations are strongly encouraged to spend a semester outside the U.S., plus a semester either in urban studies (U.S.) or in Washington D.C. These students are electonically linked to Valpo and keep up-to-date with campus developments in the PR major. The need now is to graduate doctoral candidates in public relations to meet the needs of the growing PR academic programs. There are many more teaching opportunities available than qualified PR PhDs and that is an ongoing crisis in PR education.
Posted by: Bonita Dostal Neff at March 28, 2006 8:56 AM