Corporate Bloggers: Porter Novelli is inviting corporate bloggers to answer a few questions about their activities. If you run a corporate blog, take the survey, designed to identify best practices.

Nice to Know: Forget Muslims, gays and lesbians, and immigrants. I learn (not that it’s any surprise) from this study that I am officially part of the most despised minority in America.

Perhaps it’s because we’re out of touch with mainstream America, since this study shows a majority of us believe torture is rarely or never justified—something that can’t be said of the more “moral” majority.

What Is Spin?: Noel Guinane of Blood & Treasure and I have been having an interesting little discussion (see comments) about the meaning of the word “spin,” which is perhaps worth broadening out.

Ironically, or perhaps not, everyone seems to have his or her own definition of spin. “Spin is propaganda, not truth,” says Noel, at one point. Later, he says, “Spin is propaganda, the coloring of some of the facts with no requirement to ‘believe’ in what you are saying.”

A quick glance at dictionary.com provides the following definition of propaganda: “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.” While spin, according to the same source, means “to provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.”

Those definitions are close enough to suggest that spin is indeed either a synonym for propaganda, or a subset of propaganda. But there are a couple of interesting points to be made about both definitions.

One is that there is no value judgment attached to either definition (although the dictionary’s example of spin in a sentence makes it clear that the term is typically used as a pejorative: “A messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred” (William A. Henry III).

But theoretically, by this definition, spin can be used for a good cause just as easily as it can for bad. Take Wal-Mart for example. The fact is that Wal-Mart pays its average hourly worker about $10 an hour, while Costco pays about $17. One spin (interpretation) of that fact is that Wal-Mart is screwing over low-income workers. Another spin (interpretation) is that it is enabling low-income workers to buy more of the things they need by keeping costs, and thus prices, down. Both of those “spins” fit the facts. Whether one is good and the other bad is a purely subjective judgment.

By this definition, then, spin is not only a legitimate pursuit, but a noble one—one that is essential to a well-functioning democracy. Facts are presented, interpretations of those facts are offered, arguments are built, courses of action suggested. Without spin, facts are dull, useless things, raw data of limited utility.

This is the essence of the advocacy function of public relations: the presentation of facts, along with an organization’s interpretation of those facts. (Public relations as a whole is the art of aligning an organization’s objectives with those of the society in which it operates: sometimes that means persuading society to adjust its objectives, through advocacy; often, it involves listening to society and realigning the organization’s objectives.)

I doubt whether this is how Noel would define either spin or public relations. And there is clearly another variety of both, what one might call “black spin,” which involves applying selected facts while ignoring less convenient others; and sometimes downright dishonesty about the facts.

This is the very opposite of public relations, since it does not improve relationships but destroys them. It can occasionally be used to stimulate a transaction—as it is in politics, where the objective is to secure a vote—but it cannot be used to develop a relationship.

I have to admit, this is the sense in which I usually use the word "spin," to make a contrast between spin and public relations. When I hear the two terms being used as if they were synonymous, as if spin was the essence of public relations rather than it's greatest enemy, a thoughtful response is required.

Lincoln Group Whitewash: I wasn’t going to say anything about the exoneration of the Lincoln Group after an inquiry into its activities in Iraq, paying for favorable editorial coverage of the U.S. occupation. First, because the finding was utterly predictable—sorry if I don’t trust this administration to investigate itself—and second because my disgust might just overcome my usual circumspection.
But a couple of people have e-mailed me asking for my opinion, so here it is: what the Lincoln Group did was despicable and dishonest, and it brought dishonor on the United States and its military.

Some additional thoughts: First, it would be nice if the media would stop referring to this activity as public relations. It’s not. When you pay to place information in a news outlet, it’s advertising, not PR. And second, stop referring to the Lincoln Group as a public relations firm. Whatever shoddy, disreputable craft the people there practice, it’s not the discipline I write about.

Second, the argument that the information placed in Iraqi media is factually accurate is irrelevant—even if true. The fact that this is paid material masquerading as independent journalism is fundamentally dishonest. The lie is not in the information, but in the presentation. It’s a lie nonetheless.

Third, we should be ashamed that we are treating people who we are supposedly there to help with such contempt. They have as much right to an independent media as Americans, and by denying them that right—by corrupting one of the most vital pillars of democracy—we are undermining an institution we claim to be there to build.

And finally, this is on purely pragmatic grounds incredibly destructive to the very image of America that the Lincoln Group was hired to project. Will Iraqis who hear that America is paying reporters to sing its praises think more highly of us as a result, or less? Will they find us more credible, or less? Will they believe us when we talk about the importance of freedom and democracy, or will they see cynicism and self-interest?

This is not just a waste of money, it is actually counter-productive.

Who's Breaking News?: The latest retort from the mainstream media to the rise of the blogosphere appears to be that blogs do not actually break any news. It’s a theme John Gapper of the Financial Times takes up here.

There’s some truth to the charge of course. A great many blogs break very little original news, restricting themselves to aggregation, commentary and analysis. I’d still consider that journalism, but it’s not news reporting.

But there are blogs breaking news. The conservative blogs that exposed problems with the 60 Minutes broadcast about the president’s National Guard service provide the most prominent example. But if you want news on Iraq, for example, you’ll learn a lot more from Baghdad Burning than you will from the New York Times. There are blogs that cover political speeches and other events faster and in more depth than the mainstream media. And as Gapper concedes, there are technology and automotive blogs breaking news all the time.

But the other problem with this line of argument is that it over-estimates the amount of original reporting that newspapers do. Take away all the stuff that’s “repurposed” from press releases, or based on Reuters or AP reports, take away all the stuff that blogs do just as well as newspapers (coverage of White House press conferences, analysis of speeches and statements from politicos) and how much of the average daily newspaper do you have left? Not as much as Gapper supposes.

A Wal-Mart Follow-Up: MSNBC republishes an article from the Portland (Ore.) Business Journal that provides a logical follow-up to the Edelman/Wal-Mart-blogger story, which puts the whole episode in context. The article is not uncritical of the bloggers involved: “Some of the bloggers did not disclose where they got their ‘facts,’ contrary to the cultural expectations around blogging, which include complete disclosure.” (I think that’s fair: there was no ethical breach, but there was a lack of sensitivity to the culture of the blogosphere.

But the article is much more critical of companies that ignore the blogosphere, or blog badly.

Among the former is Portland General Electric, which has apparently failed to engage with local bloggers, including a city commissioner, who have posted critically about the company. PGE is monitoring blogs, says its director of corporate communications, but does not respond to comments and has no plans to start a blog of its own.

Among the latter are Nike, whose blog “lacks social features” and a personality, and McDonald’s, which has not updated its social responsibility blog since March 6, which the author rightly observes is “a long lag in the blogosphere.” The company also fails to respond to visitor comments, which “makes it look like a conversation on their terms,” says one critic.

Nice article.

When Numbers Lie: The bogus study is a staple of public relations, and Slate’s Jack Shafer does a fine job of dismantling a recent example of the genre, examining the claim by employee communications firm Challenger Grey & Christmas that companies will lose $3.8 billion in productivity as their employees goof off watching the NCAA tournament.

The survey was picked up widely, including coverage in major media such as the New York Times, Boston Globe, and the Washington Post, despite being built around an utterly spurious statistic. So, do we applaud the creativity of the bogus study, or do we bemoan its fundamental dishonesty?

PR Websites Suck: This will come as no surprise to anyone who visits PR agency sites regularly, but public relations sites ranked bottom of a 10-year Web Marketing Association study of trends across 80 industries. Gaming and music websites were rated the highest, followed by automotive and sports sites.

The survey evaluated sites on seven criteria: design, innovation, content, technology, interactivity, copywriting and ease of use.

“While advertising sites excelled in design and innovation, public relations sites ranked low across all categories,” said the report. “Notably, public relations scored lowest for copywriting, even though it is an industry known for effective communication.”

According to William Rice, president of the Web Marketing Association: “It’s likely that PR practitioners focus more on developing their clients’ sites, while their own sites suffer from typical ‘brochure-ware.’ Another possibility is that the low scores reflect the informal nature of the Internet and the backlash over over-edited, corporate speak.”

Ford on the Firing Line: Anti-gay bigots have reinstated their boycott of Ford over its advertising to gay and lesbian consumers. Everything I said the first time remains true.

Spin and Truth at Blood & Treasure: Over at Blood & Treasure, an agreeably dyspeptic site (if that’s not an oxymoron) produced by “a renegade team of corporate surveillance experts” comes an interesting comment on the Edelman/Wal-Mart-blogger affair.

The authors quote Richard Edelman (alongside an unflattering portrait) telling CNN: “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.”

“In other words,” Blood & Treasure paraphrases: “we're not honest and would never claim to be honest, but what's important is that the information we're handling dishonestly is honest information, and once we're very honest about dishonestly handling honest information, then that's okay.”

I don’t think that’s what Richard was saying. I assume he was saying that he doesn’t expect people to trust PR people implicitly, that trust has to be earned by providing trustworthy (ie accurate) information, and by being honest about their motives.

“The way I see it,” says post author Noel Guinane, “the trouble with hiring a PR firm to make use of blogs is that when people find out you’re using PR, they never know what is truth and what is spin, and therefore won’t trust anything they read.”

I’d challenge a couple of the underlying assumptions. First, I don’t think most PR people are any more prone to blurring the line between spin and truth than most bloggers. Read Glenn Reynolds or Daily Kos. Truth or spin?

That leads me to my second concern, which is that I don’t quite trust people who believe there’s a clear dividing line, with truth on one side and spin on the other. Those people see a grey world in terms of black and white. Truth, it seems to me, can only be applied to factual statements. Spin, by its nature, is not about facts but about interpretation of the facts. They are not opposites. They exist in separate realms.
Nothing Wal-Mart told the bloggers was, to the best of my knowledge, inaccurate or untruthful.: Over at Blood & Treasure, an agreeably dyspeptic site (if that’s not an oxymoron) produced by “a renegade team of corporate surveillance experts” comes an interesting comment on the Edelman/Wal-Mart-blogger affair.

The authors quote Richard Edelman (alongside an unflattering portrait) telling CNN: “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.”

“In other words,” Blood & Treasure paraphrases: “we're not honest and would never claim to be honest, but what's important is that the information we're handling dishonestly is honest information, and once we're very honest about dishonestly handling honest information, then that's okay.”

I don’t think that’s what Richard was saying. I assume he was saying that he doesn’t expect people to trust PR people implicitly, that trust has to be earned by providing trustworthy (ie accurate) information, and by being honest about their motives.

“The way I see it,” says post author Noel Guinane, “the trouble with hiring a PR firm to make use of blogs is that when people find out you’re using PR, they never know what is truth and what is spin, and therefore won’t trust anything they read.”

I’d challenge a couple of the underlying assumptions. First, I don’t think most PR people are any more prone to blurring the line between spin and truth than most bloggers. Read Glenn Reynolds or Daily Kos. Truth or spin?

That leads me to my second concern, which is that I don’t quite trust people who believe there’s a clear dividing line, with truth on one side and spin on the other. Those people see a grey world in terms of black and white. Truth, it seems to me, can only be applied to factual statements. Spin, by its nature, is not about facts but about interpretation of the facts. They are not opposites. They exist in separate realms.
Nothing Wal-Mart told the bloggers was, to the best of my knowledge, inaccurate or untruthful.