One of my journalism professors used to say that the most potent PR is that where the public is unable to detect the “relation” to a source. PR is supposed to be the understated first cousin of the more flamboyant advertising. As the cliché goes, “advertising you pay for, PR you pray for.” And because the better-crafted initiatives are subtle and can pass off as newsworthy, PR is also the communications weapon of choice for less innocent purposes.
A perceptive reader can intuit the spin from the legitimate news. He can even sense whether the “PR handler” is an old pro or a newbie. The dividing line between the previous generation of PR practitioners versus the newer breed sired by the Internet and Wikipedia is clear. One distinct sign is that the veterans, most likely deceased or in their seventies or eighties by now, were known by name rather than by face. It was only in death that the general public saw the face of Bubby Dacer. Only the inner sanctum of the shadowy PR world of yore knew what the notorious veterans looked like. Today, there are fewer PR phantoms. The profession has come into the light for better or for worse.
PR professionals should be distinguished from the reporters, columnists and commentators of the AC-DC (Attack-Collect, Defend-Collect) ilk. The former are deliberate and trained image builders while the latter are opportunistic hacks masquerading as journalists. The former are out in the open and paid honestly for the service they render. The latter hide behind secret bank accounts and warp the integrity of their chosen calling.
Unless the reader has an absolute absence of malice or an untrained eye, most of the time he knows when the news is pure puffery or a demolition job. The telltale signs are there: glittering generalities or venomous attacks that are repeated often and consistently. When the content is short on verifiable facts, one-sided or glows with praise that is contrary to public opinion, it’s easy to conclude that someone is making money from the exercise — but not earning his keep since it’s as subtle as an elephant. That’s when the slip shows, and it’s not a pretty sight.
Just for the exercise, try monitoring the news in one medium for two weeks. Newspapers are easiest because they’re tangible and can be referred back to for a more systematic evaluation of content. Compare the substance of one periodical with another. How different is the slant? Columns are another interesting area of study. If a columnist mentions a certain name or issue far too frequently, is he being motivated to fan the flame? If so, how much credibility and trust should be conferred on this author?
Of course “guilt beyond reasonable doubt” is hard to prove unless the suspect is caught with the envelope. It’s entirely possible that he was simply born depressed and therefore sees the negative more than the positive. An occasional rant and rave, or an isolated case of rebuke against a person, does not count as a smoking gun. Nor is the “incentive” always monetary. Sometimes an imagined slight, the failure to be recognized or the frustration of unrewarded or undervalued effort is enough to make the poison pen flow.
A personal investigation of the past two weeks’ content revealed several suspicious “threads of news” that are raising some wary eyebrows and making alarm bells ring in varying decibels.
THE GMA APOLOGISTS
No surprises here. This was probably Item A of the exit plan. Prepped and mobilized to defend the former president against any perceived criticism, allegation, suspicion, or attack, subtlety is not in their vocabulary. In fact, at the slightest unflattering observation, a chorus of mouthpieces and their understudies in the media immediately explain, deny, obfuscate and counterattack, with the fastest orchestrated response time. Going über-asinine by projecting the most unpopular ex-leader as “possibly the greatest president ever, who will be vindicated by time…” this chorale of toadies has tried to frame her nine-year term as a progressive chapter of our history. This effort died down to a whimper when it became too evident that no one was buying the baloney. Attempts to play down the popularity of the new president are also patent. However, this, too, will diminish as the grease money runs out.
THE ABAD BASHERS
Whether or not you believe that there’s one Abad too many in government, the fact is, there is a sinister, concerted effort to cast aspersions on their character. If one or two news items made a negative commentary, this could be seen as purely coincidental. But if there is such a prolonged swell, using both mainstream and online media, this is designed to create a tipping point against the Abads. Someone is conducting and coordinating the assault. We know the where, the when and the how. We don’t know the who, the why and how much?
THE DINKY DEMOLITION DERBY
I will say this much. The Dinky detractors are a determined lot. And they take defeat with deadly denial. How else can you explain the fact that after five years of unrelenting attack by the most strident, heavyweight enemies, she still has a trust rating of 72 percent? They must be using the wrong strategy, wrong messaging and wrong media channels. Either that, or their own trust ratings are much lower than Dinky’s. If they hold on together, there’s still the next six years.
WAR AND PEACe (BONDS)
The assault on the PEACe bonds feels like the 100-year war. The issue has been beaten to death. It was investigated by the senate nine years ago at inception. There was no guilty verdict, no conviction. It did not even merit a final committee report or a resolution of censure. Why is it being revived all over again? The worst part is the ignorance betrayed by some of its opponents. Recently one columnist even groused, with sarcasm, why after nine years of the PEACe bonds there is still no peace in Mindanao. Duh! If you want to pelt with tomatoes, the least you can do is get it right. Repeat after me: Poverty Eradication and Alleviation Certificates. Yes, Mindanao is included among its priority areas, but it’s really not about the war. Enough already!
THE TWO-HEADED
COMMS CREATURE
Aren’t two heads better than one? At least until proven otherwise, let the experiment run its course. An innovation is precisely to try the road less taken. What’s the fuss all about? Regardless of whether this structure came about because of accommodation and infighting, let it be. And if it turns into a jousting ground, so be it. Let performance be the ultimate judge. May the best man win!
The PR profession needs a shot in the arm. A review of the fundamentals is in order. There is a thin line between the publicist, the propagandist and the operator. But the boundaries are very clear. The ethical, moral and professional divide is not subtle at all. The elephant is in the room. PR practitioners should include regular introspections every so often, so they can stare at their image in the mirror and still like what they see.
* * *
Contact the author at ms.comfeedback@gmail.com.