Jay Rosen offers up a tremendously interesting and thought-provoking essay
about meaningless PR stunts and whether or not we should cover them. You
might say, “Well, of course, we shouldn't cover meaningless PR stunts”. But
what if that stunt was the President of the United States visiting U.S. Troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving? Aaah. Now you've got an ethical quandary on
your hands. This stunt exists only for the press and costs several million
taxpayer dollars. But this is such a stunt — I mean, it's a doozy — that
you can't resist. And yet, if, as some commentators have said, our job is
tell the truth, what are we doing if we agree to not say anything about this
stunt until after the stunt is over?
From Rosen's blog:
Ask any of the reporters who accompanied Bush to Baghdad what they were doing there and, after allowing for the unusual circumstances (extreme
secrecy) they would say they were there to “cover the president's surprise
trip to Baghdad.” Which sounds reasonable enough until you realize that the
president's trip did not exist as a workable idea outside the anticipated
news coverage of it. This realization takes under three seconds.
The whole notion of the trip as an independently existing thing that could
be “covered” is transparently false, as the White House warning to
journalists demonstrates. If word leaked out, the trip was to be
cancelled–it would no longer exist–and the airplane would turn around and
head back to Washington. That does not mean the trip was illegitimate to
undertake or to treat as news; but it does mean that its potential
legitimacy as news event lies outside the logic of “things happen and we
cover them” or “the president took decisive action and the press reported
it.
First, I don't think the Bush visit was a stunt of any kind. I think it was a great way to boost moral out in the mess we call IRAQ.
Secondly, no offense but I don't think any news organizations actually exist today that really care about telling the truth. Its all about selling advertising and nothing more.
Sorry to hear you're such a cynic but, as the truth is often stranger than fiction, you might be surprised to hear that telling the truth actually helps sell advertising!
… and then there are articles and photos that aren't PR initiated, but media initiated, that aren't really newsworthy either. It goes both ways. “meaningless” is not black or white, but more of a grey area. What's meaningless to one, is meaningful to another. Take the George Bush scenario. To some, it's meaningful news – a symbolic “victory” in the fight where even the President can set foot in this war-torn country. to some, it's meaningless because life goes on whether he did it or not. As for media induced “meaningless” items it provides space to, is the SunshineGirl in the Toronto Sun meaningful? Or would one prefer that space devoted to hardnews? There are the occasional stories of “It's the first day of Sping!” with a photo of trees and people taking a walk in the nice weather – but that's not news. Same with product reviews the media sometimes profiles, or the x-mas gift-guides. On the TV, there are personalities like Peter Gross of CityPulse news and his segments on the World According to Gross where he takes a wacky, quicky, humourous view or parody of something. Is it meaningful? Not compared to hard news or a war story. is it meaningless? not entirely as many people say media only cover “bad news” stories and this personality is trying to put some humour in the day's news. One can also debate Entertainment news, gossip on hollywood stars, the “Bennifer” wedding, etc. Ultimately, media makes the final decision what makes the cut as what goes into print or TV. Just because there is a PR stunt, does not mean media must cover it. Free country, free choice. But if media cover a PR stunt, it can't be all that meaningless as media see some value in that. there are a hundred stories that happen in a day and media can only take a small snapshot. There are always alternative stories, even on a slow news day. It's not really a question of right or wrong because this is a gray area; eye of the beholder. My advice is to just accept it. That's life, it happens and will happen again, just move on. If everything in life made sense, life would be too easy. But that's what makes life (and what makes the daily news) interesting. Different stories, different opinions, different values.