This article examines an essay on why PR people get a bad reputation -- and too often, bad treatment from journalists. (Don't get us wrong. Some have it coming.)
The piece, written by Gawker's Hamilton Nolan, has several problems -- condescension, contempt, ignorance, you name it. Here's one choice line: "[PR's] entire role is to insulate the company itself from proper criticism." This is almost categorically false. PR's role is to tell a client's story, compellingly but without fabrication. Reputation and issues management is a relatively small part of a consultant's day-in, day-out. Here's another one, ladled out with a thick helping of snark: "Inhuman, faceless corporations purchase smiling and attractive human faces to represent them." (Actually, why, thank you!)
After throwing around other words like "craven" and "dishonest", Nolan -- a guy we usually enjoy -- finishes: "I do not think that journalists are better people than flacks. But I do think that we must always be enemies, for the good of the world."
Can't we all just get along?
PR pros are paid in part to have an in-depth understanding of their clients and how they operate. Journalists are expected to have a complete grasp of the subject matter they cover. But Nolan prefers to keep the industry he's writing about at arm's length, based on deep-seated stereotypes and a healthy superiority complex. PR needs to know how journalism works -- is it too much to ask for journalism to try to understand PR?