But to get back to Toni’s original point, and to avoid being accused of “otherthingism”, I remain uncomfortable with the use of the word “objectivity”, even in a relative sense, when describing the work that PR people do. And at a time when the word is falling out of favour in journalistic circles (to be replaced with words like “fairness” and “balance”), I’m not sure why PR people would want to grab this falling torch. Journalists don’t expect PR people to be objective, but as Toni says, “so what”? Journalists expect the information they get from PR practitioners to be accurate and honest, but they also understand that the PR person is a paid advocate, and has a vested interest in how the story ultimately gets written. Can this really be squared with “objectivity”?

No self-respecting journalist needs to be told by a PR person that they should be making more phone calls, and though suggestions are always welcome, they shouldn’t be relying on PR people to tell them who they should be calling. The failure to vigorously pursue different sides of a story (which happens far too often) is a failure of journalism that neither can nor should be corrected by public relations. As one senior PR executive in Toronto told me in an interview, “you don’t have to just buy what I say. You can talk to whomever you want. My job is to make the story from my perspective as clear as possible, and that’s really it. It’s not my job to say the story begins and ends with what I’ve told you. It’s not my fault if you don’t make another phone call”. Most journalists understand and accept this as the basis of their relationship with PR. The attempt by public relations to improve its relationship with journalists or other “interlocutors” by appearing more “objective” is probably unnecessary, and likely doomed to failure.

Mind you..not that otherthingisms mentioned are not interesting..to the contrary..but this is the best way to divert a discussion from its original intent (talking of relative objectivity…).

Of course transparency is a fundamental feature of professional public relations, no matter what (with all due respect) Ira Basin says.
Brad Rawlins, from Brigham Young has recently published a highly interesting paper on this, and even before that I have been for years raising my coworkers and students the argument that, specifically in public relations, transparency basically implies three (and sometimes four) components:
°you say who you are
°you say who you represent
°you explicit your specific objective
and (but only when soft or hard regulations do not impede you…such as in financial communication for example)
°you explicit how you intend to reach your specific objective.
This is transparency, essential, but has nothing to do with what I was trying to express in my original post.

I am not surprised that Ira voice what journalists expect from us (my recent post on the italian research on what we think of journalists and they think of us fully confirms this).
So what?
I am in full and total agreement with Catherine Arrow who suggests that journalists are less and less our principal interlocutors and that even when we discuss with journalists we should always keep in mind that they are only intermediaries (however essential) with our real publics.

The concept of relative objectivity, I admit (but this is why I raised it), is difficult for a public relator to come to grips with, but (if I may…)I strongly advocate that more thought should be given to this, not because we want our employer/clients to be good rather than only appear good (Cathy again), but principally for the reason Ira indicates. If journalists do not expect you to be relatively objective, if they find out you are, they will surprised and you will be more effective.
And if this is true for journalists, who are by far the most cynical and misbelieving of professionals (worse than doctors or lawyers, let alone public relators..), then it is even more true for other and more relevant interlocutors such as financial analysts, non profit organizations, suppliers, distributors, clients, employees and what have you.
Just as simple as that..