In some ways, Andrea Mitchell told the truth in her report; however, she omitted some telling information from it that completely changed the context. So, how do we, as journalists or PR professionals, determine what is the truth and what needs to be told? A PR professional obviously has a preference, but the journalist does too. Do we leave it all to relationship building and become so connected with the journalist they will tell our story how we want it to be told? My truth could be someone else' half-truth. Our cardinal rule is to not lie, but that brings in so much more.
Ultimately, Mitchell spun her story wrongly and should have presented it as unedited. I am curious to how this issue was confronted besides "running for the hills" when the dirt was uncovered. MSNBC is obviously at fault because they are the parent, but they could give themselves some slack due to Mitchell, in some form, being their spokesperson. She could take the wrap for her story. Nonetheless, they are both due some good PR because they ruined their reputation with the Romney company. The public I doubt would care too much, but journalists need PR professionals as much as we need journalists. They may not be getting that new exclusive anymore. Wawa, on the other hand, got some free PR out of it and seemed to come out nicely. The whole world knows they have some of-the-day equipment and great service. Cheers to you Wawa.
No comments:
Post a Comment