Exposing dodgy PR practices or making the media communications process transparent?

Media awareness charity, the Media Standards Trust, has launched a new website, churnalism.com, which aims to enable media consumers to identify how much of the content in their favourite medium has been copied from press releases. Readers simply copy the article into its ‘churn engine’ to discover its source. So does the PR industry have anything to worry about?


Some PR commentators argue that the site will expose ‘an ugly PR truth’ and that unscrupulous operators may use the site to demonstrate the success of their campaigns, and while there is undoubtedly some truth in these warnings, the site presents an opportunity for the PR industry too.

Rather than ‘exposing’ dodgy PR practices, the site should be seen as an opportunity to make the whole media communications process more transparent, which as well as being good news for the reader, is also good news for PR and journalists. With both occupations suffering from low trust levels among the general public, it seems to me that churnalism.com presents an opportunity to tackle the problem head on. It is a chance for both parties to think more carefully about the needs of the audiences; PRO’s should think more carefully about the news value and purpose of the communications they issue, and journalists, editors and media owners should think more carefully about the value and impact of the stories they run. This can only improve trust levels.

The practice of churnalism is detrimental to the reputations of PR and journalism alike, so far from being bad news for PR and journalism, churnalism.com should be embraced as an opportunity to demonstrate the value and purpose of good media communications practices. Transparency is the key to building trust, so churnalism.com should be a welcome addition.

Is it ever OK to name and shame poor PR practitioners?

An online survey conducted by PR Week, has revealed that over 94% of PR practitioners don’t believe that sloppy PRO’s should be named and shamed. In a poll which asked visitors to prweek.com, ‘is it OK for journalists/ bloggers to name and shame persistent PR professionals?’, the majority of the 168 respondents thought not.


So what are the ethical issues involved in adopting a ‘name and shame’ approach? Should poor practice be exposed in this way? Does it really change the way people operate or would the industry and its less able practitioners be better served by promoting the benefits of an industry-appropriate education? Or is the high level of outrage at the practice yet another example of poor PR practice?

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the debate.