The behavior of PR Society chapter members, the local press, and PR students and academics last week in E. Lansing, Mich., tells volumes about the current practice of PR, journalism and the teaching of PR.
On tap Sept. 23 was none other than Mike Cherenson, chair of the 32,000-member PR Society, who is leading PRS through a gut-wrenching, expensive, and time-consuming (“thousands of hours”) re-write of its bylaws.
Adding drama to his appearance, attended by 36 of the 127 chapter members, is that the local chapter, Central Michigan, is the very chapter that went head-to-head with national leadership in 2006 as the chapter tried to model PRS’s governance after that of the American Bar Assn. and American Medical Assn.
National leadership cried crocodile tears and threw everything at CM but the kitchen sink, saying (falsely) that the Assembly already had the powers it sought and that directors’ insurance would have to be purchased for all 300 delegates (dubious).
We sent materials in the past couple of weeks on CM’s quest and the bylaws re-write to chapter leaders; PR and journalism professors at Michigan State, based in E. Lansing; its school newspaper, The State News; the local Gannett paper, Lansing State Journal), and contacted faculty adviser Russ White of MSU.
We were offering, as we did earlier this year when Cherenson visited Akron, up to $200 for recording, writing about and taking pictures of his visit.
Cherenson Preaches Distrust of Journalists
Adding more drama to this picture is that Cherenson on Sept. 10 told a PRS teleconference that journalists as a group could not, in his opinion, join PRS because they could not live up to the ethics code of PRS which calls on members to protect confidences.
The Society, in a desperate move to add members, is repositioning itself as “the world’s leading advocate for communications professionals” and wants to take in anyone remotely connected to “communications” with the exception of journalists (in Cherenson’s view).
We thought this might make the blood boil of someone in the MSU journalism dept. which says it is “nationally and internationally known,” has a Pulitzer Prize winner, an ex-Time mag reporter and “world-class researchers and specialist faculty…”
Among those listed on the website is Prof. Jane Briggs-Bunting, a lawyer and reporter. We were especially interested in her opinion on PRS’s proposed use of proxies to pass the bylaws.
However, she e-mailed us back she was “on leave for the academic year.” She referred us to the new J-school director Lucinda Davenport.
Journalists Take a Beating
Cherenson’s take down of journalists is not only a low blow and especially hurtful in these difficult economic times, but something that will hurt PR also.
UNITY, Journalists of Color, McClean, Va., has tracked the layoffs of journalists since Jan. 1, 2008 and found that 46,599 have lost their jobs—three times the job loss rate of other industries. It used SEC data and company announcements from 1,101 print and broadcast media.
No doubt many of the journalists will seek jobs with industry, providing stiff competition to experienced as well as fledgling PR people. The journalists have proven writing skills.
On top of that, those majoring in “communications” will have that many fewer media jobs available to them.
Cherenson Should Retract Statement
We’re calling on Cherenson to retract his statement casting doubt on the ethics of reporters. He said, “If I am a reporter, can I sign this (PRS) code of ethics? I don’t see how I could. Not that they’re unethical. They abide by a different code.” (link)
We have sent Cherenson’s quotes to the Society of Professional Journalists, the Assn. for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, and UNITY.
Journalist groups should strike back and not let attacks by a PR group on the trustworthiness of reporters go unchallenged.
Whenever a journalist attacks PR, PRS goes after him or her hammer and tong. Jeff Julin, 2008 chair, called on all members to e-mail CBS commentator Andrew Cohen last year when he said PR is a craft “based on deceit and spin” that tries to turn “milk cows into race horses” and “turkeys into eagles.”
We have been disappointed with SPJ in the past but remain hopeful. Its ethics committee refused to say anything earlier this year when we sent it a report on the annual PR Seminar secret meeting of nearly 200 PR executives and editors of major media such as the New York Times, Wall St. Newsweek, Financial Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN.
None of these media has ever mentioned the existence of Seminar. A member of the ethics committee found ten SPJ ethical violations in such failure to report but it was only his opinion.
Cherenson Monopolized Mic
As for what Cherenson actually did Sept. 24 in E. Lansing, we can report the following based on sources who were present.
His upbeat speech about PRS and its goals, with a large segment on the new media, occupied 57 minutes—classic mike control by a PRS leader. No more than seven minutes was allowed for questions.
It’s what PRS leaders did at the 2008 Assembly—5.5 hours of programmed activities out of a 7-hour meeting including hundreds of slides. Delegates who tried to ask questions were told to hold them for the “Town Hall” that never took place.
Had Mike been interested in what members think about the sweeping bylaws re-write, he would have talked for a couple of minutes and asked for questions. Thirty detailed criticisms of the proposed bylaws were sent to the governance e-group in early September. [Microsoft Word document containing criticisms]
However, sources at the meeting said most of those present were in non-profit, governmental or educational jobs and had little if any inkling of bylaws changes that include having Assembly delegates serve one year instead of three as at present; power to elect board/officers being removed from the Assembly, and proxy votes being used to pass these and other major changes.
Some senior members are especially upset over the fact that proxy votes are being used to formalize proxy voting itself in the bylaws. They said this is like a legislative body deciding to move from open voting of delegates by name to secret voting using secret voting to accomplish that.
The main interest of the attendees seemed to be seeking news of the job market and making new contacts that might help in job-seeking.
Chapter’s Members Publicly Listed
We salute the chapter for having a published list of its 127 members including their employers and phone numbers. E-mails should be added. About 100 of the members have non-profit, governmental or educational employers.
This is the only PRS chapter we know of that reveals its members. All national PR groups, including PRS, IABC, EPPS, NIRI, Arthur Page Society, PR Seminar, Publicity Clubs, etc., have confidential members’ lists.
This is an unequal picture because contact points of virtually all reporters and editors are public and dossiers are kept on them by services using state-of-the-art software including personal information such as school and job history, how easy or hard they are to deal with, and whether their stories show biases of any type.
Educators Take a Pass
Also disappointing is the failure to interest any journalism or PR students or professors in Cherenson’s historic visit. Had some unusual life form been on display we’re sure science and other depts.. would have flocked to this meeting, overwhelmed by curiosity.
PR, in sometimes avoiding knowledge, is the opposite of science, education and journalism.
While MSU has PR and Journalism depts.., the University of Michigan, in nearby Ann Arbor, has no such courses. UM is Ivy-League –level in its curricula, attracting students from throughout the nation. Most students as MSU are from within the state.
The expected nomination of Rosanna Fiske of Florida International University as chair-elect for 2010 will put another spotlight on PR education.
The question is whether students are getting hyped or educated.
Her course “MMC 5306—Global Communications,” taught in the summer of 2009, promised to cover “diversity of news and mass communications; emerging trends in global business communication and media; advances in technology; global sources and systems of communication; cultural contexts; theories of symbolic interaction, structuration, convergence, world-system and electronic colonialism; ethical and legal issues, and the role and impact of advertising and PR in the global marketplace.”
Students were promised they would obtain skills “necessary for designing and implementing effective communications programs for global markets.”
All this was to be done in a three-month course with three 2.5-hour classroom sessions, and with Fiske telling the students that her “preference is to be contacted through WebCT e-mail or through discussion boards.”
Is this hype or education?
At Boston University’s College of Communications, the citadel of PR and communications education, about 400 students this fall are paying $4,736 for the mandatory “CO 101—The World of Communication” (21 sections).
It consists of lectures by a series of College deans and professors and professors from the College of Arts and Sciences and presentations by “alumni from the communications industries.”
There is only a brief one-graph description of this course on the BU website (unlike the Fiske course which is described in detail in five pages).
With respect to the BU course, it is one where students, raised on computers, the internet and social media, may know more about the subject than the teachers.
|