Should the PRO Poke the News Editor?

Recently, the news media poked my client and me in our eyes. The incident has caused me to ponder whether fair treatment was meted out to us, and it underscores the inter-play between public relations and media relations.

Several news outlets in Jamaica carried a report about the extradition of a university lecturer from that country to the United States of America (USA) on charges for crimes he allegedly committed there two decades ago.

When his initial arrest and court appearance in Jamaica was reported, the media disclosed his name, the institution where he worked for two decades and the subject he taught. The initial news story also explained that the alleged crimes were committed in the USA two decades ago before the lecturer arrived in Jamaica and was subsequently employed by the university. These are all useful points of information in accordance with the five W’s and H newswriting formula.

However, the latest media report, about the lecturer’s court appearance in the USA gave me cause for pause. Why? The news report repeated details of the lecturer’s connection to the university and identified the institution by name? Was this necessary having previously established that his alleged crimes are unconnected to his tenure, position and performance at the university? Would the story have lost any of its newsworthiness by indicating that he was a Jamaican university lecturer, but omit the university’s name?

Sensitive Journalism

This calls for sensitive journalism, which I don’t think news editors, in their gatekeeping roles, are alert to all the time. It behooves media organisations to be always fair and balanced in their reporting. That’s a fundamental ethical principle of the journalism profession and media business. It is an injustice to make a particular organisation appear in a negative light merely by association.

But what can an organization do to respond to this kind of treatment from the media?

• The public relations officer (PRO) must first decide whether it’s worth making a public complaint the media. This may just keep the matter in the public domain.
• Another approach is for the PRO to relate the concern to the news editor or editorial ombudsman to discourage a repeat of the indiscretion. These approaches are advisable where there is no clear case of malicious intent or libel.

Of course, with the negative news already in circulation, this is where the resilience of an organisation’s reputation, built deliberately over time, is tested. This is a compelling reason for organisations to have a robust PR programme in place. This is an opportune time to shine the spotlight on your organisation’s reputation. In the case of my client, the public feedback to the reports has indicated no significant fallout.

Do you think the media treated my client fairly?