Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »
Jay Rosen
Documents show the Pentagon rates reporters' previous coverage as positive or negative before deciding how to handle them http://www.stripes.com/article...
Ah... all public relations do this. WaggEd (MSFT's PR shop) won't talk to you if you've been consistently negative about the company. The White House, no matter which party is in power, does the same. - Jason Pontin
I guess this would be 'okay' - but how they handle them based on this rating is of more importance, right? - Chris Heath
@Jason: That's actually your response to this? You read the article? - Ken Kennedy
There's the savvy for you. The Pentagon tell us, "the only thing we care about is accurate/inaccurate." Documents come to light showing that this is....you know, a total lie. Then the savvy guy (in this example played by Jason Pontin but it could be many, many other journalists) who knows how the world really works, drops by to de-excite us: they all do it! Standard practice! You need to get out a little more! - Jay Rosen
Ah...I understand. I am enlightened. Thanks, Jay. I have a new understanding of 'Church of the Savvy' now. - Ken Kennedy
And of course I do have to add that it's probably true.... WaggEd (MSFT's PR shop) won't talk to you if you've been consistently negative about the company. The White House, no matter which party is in power, does the same... Punishing reporters who are tough on the home team is not a novel concept at all. The savvy is always telling us why we shouldn't be surprised. That's like...a theme. - Jay Rosen
Under Bush the military stealthed retired military in as television network analysts: http://is.gd/2CKp8 This combination reporter-rating/message-shaping looks like more of the same to me. At the Fayetteville Observer, next door to Fort Bragg, we didn't think that was to-be-expected. For what it's worth. - George Frink
Well, Jay, Ken - I didn't mean to imply that it's not shocking if you don't know how PR works; nor that it's not undesirable and undermining of journalism and an open society. I admire Stars and Stripes for their reporting. But I have been shut out by many, many flacks over the years for negative coverage: they think they are protecting their clients. Eventually, they let you out of the dog house. The interesting parts, for me, are A). To what degree do journalists, even unconsciously, begin to tailor their coverage to avoid being sent back to the dog house? And B). Should journalists reveal they've been sent to the dog house for negative coverage? Would readers care? Or would it seem like professional whining? BTW, just like the Pentagon, WaggEd keeps files where they laboriously rate and monitor journalists. On one famous occasion, they accidently sent Fred Vogelstein his rating: http://slashdot.org/article... - Jason Pontin