News Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive James Murdoch this afternoon made the shock announcement of the clousure 168 year old News Of The World (#NOTW).
In what is seen as a high risk decision aimed at both ending the scandal surrounding News Of The World’s alleged phone-hacking and placating the political beasts who are calling for a ‘No’ to News International’s BSkyB deal, Murdoch and his Executives decided to sacrifice this title.
It is being reported that over 200 jobs will be culled in the clousure, with the offer being made to staff to reapply for work within News International. This of course has raised the question of if the decision is just a PR masterstroke to push through News Corporation’s desire to secure the BSkyB deal. It equally raises the question of why Rebekah Brooks still in her job, given that she was Editor of the title during the Milly Dowler phone-hacking.
Since it was made public that journalists had hacked into people’s phones, social media channels vocalised their disgust at the News Of The World with many thousands targeting companies, calling on them to remove their advertising from the title.
This is a going to be a text book PR case study of HOW NOT to manage a crisis and solve the reputation of an established news outlet.
Excuse after excuse has cost the jobs of many journalists just so News International can gain full ownership of BSkyB.
Of course, is there a Sunday Sun on the way? Well, On Tuesday 5 July 2011 – two days ago, the Sun On Sunday UK domain was registered (Registered by News International), so, we’ll have to wait and see!
UK national tabloid The News Of The World (#NOTW) is caught in the eye of a very public storm as revelations allege their involvement in the phone hacking of not just the murdered Milly Dowler, but the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and victims of the July 7th London bombing.
The esteemed Nicholas Tomalin, said that ‘the only qualities needed for real success in Journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.‘ He was not wrong.
It is this cunning that’s got The Guardian’sNick Davies the story, as it’s served up insight into the activities that were allegedly common place at the News Of The World. But let’s not single them out exclusively. News outlets are in competition with one another and it would be odd to think that they were the only ones guilty. In fact, In the 2006 ‘What Price Privacy Now?’ report (below) the Information Commission highlighted that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information. Have a look at the list and you’ll be surprised by some of the titles that were named and shamed. The various reports confirm two methods that journalists and private investigators use to get information, including, ‘through corruption, or more usually by some form of deception, generally known as ‘blagging’. Blaggers pretend to be someone they are not in order to wheedle out the information they are seeking.’
Phone-hacking is really just the tip of the iceberg. Given that most people do not change the default password on their phone it is pretty easy to intercept voice messages. But, getting information on addresses, car registration requires deception and/or as the law describes, corruption.
The above report highlights the case of how in November 2006 Stephen and Sharon Anderson of St Ives in Cambridgeshire pleaded guilty to obtaining and selling information unlawfully whilst operating as private investigators. They used ‘blagging’ techniques to obtain and attempt to obtain personal information about individuals from a number of organisations including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, British Telecommunications plc and various banks.
So, while our eyes are currently on The News Of The World, the real question is, what about organisations that private investigators get their data from? How safe is your data – your bank details, phone numbers, your bills and tax information? And how ready are these businesses for the questions that must be asked? If you work PR in-house or agency-side are you ready for the reputation of your client or employer being questioned? And questions about how safe customers data is? And today, when we work online, how safe our our emails and our personal profiles?
News Of The World’s official line that it was all down to a ‘rogue reporter’ just did not wash from a public relations perspective. While it might have held back the criticism, it was like putting a finger in the dam.
Some newsrooms are aggressive places with boiler-room like cultures. You have to get the story. You don’t ask questions about the how, you just need to make sure that all the pieces fit together and that your legal team sign it off. All of course with the safety net of ‘Public Interest.’ But what is the definition of public interest? And why is the very quiet Press Complaint Commission so neutral? The PCC’s statement was just pointless.
Carter-Ruck Partner Magnus Boyd says, “public interest is always the justification used for such intrusion. It appears the lack of an adequate definition of public interest has allowed many spurious claims to the public interest.“ He says, “At the moment only Ofcom and the PCC offer working definitions of what is in the public interest and both are deliberately vaugue so as to retain sufficient flexibility and applicability.”
“Conversely, however, the lack of precision in the definition of ‘public interest’ allows the concept to be cited on ‘a rather tired and formulaic basis’ in many cases as Mr Justice Eady noted. What is interesting to the public may not neceassarily be in the public interest but we can no longer afford to seek to define it by ommission or by the adage, ‘you’ll know it when you see it’.” We need to define what the public interest is in a way that the general public can understand and relate to and which will have sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing circumstances without being all things to all men”
Talking about celebrity reporting Boyd goes on to explain, “Ironically, celebrity reporting usually requires the least invasive investigation techniques – there are usually people ready to talk off the record and perpetuate the gossip. What may well emerge from recent events is that hacking and blagging were used far more in the investigation of financial and corporate stories than readers may have realised as well as more general news items.”
Up an until The Guardian revealed that the phone of Milly Dowler had been hacked the story seemed distant from the public. It was an issue that just affected celebrities, people, as some might claim, that courted the media. But knowing to what lengths certain media outlets would go to has turned the tide.
A social media campaign by the public has been targeting not just readers of the paper but companies that advertise in the News of the World. Public revulsion is pushing this gossip paper into a tight corner. Companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, NPower, Virgin Holidays have cut their advertising from the title.
The Daily Telegraph’s Harry Wallop commented on Twitter, ‘NotW makes c£35m from ads + c£135m from sales. Few weeks of dropped ads won’t hit paper hard. Reader loyalty is what matters.’
The community is using Twitter and Facebook to spread their disgust and it’s having an impact, with subscribers to The Sun and other News International cancelling their subscriptions.
Social media can whip-up a storm and highlight public sentiment in real-time. Give the community and argument and it will express it’s view. But let’s remember, they are not the only guilty party and PR’s need to be ready for the questions about data, information and privacy that now need to be asked.
****UPDATE***
The Press Complain’s Commission yesterday released a statement that, well, didn’t say much apart from it being unhappy with the conduct of one of it’s members.
Labour MP Alun Michael, himself a former journalist, speaking in an emergency debate about phone-hacking in the Commons yesterday, said: “The PCC is well meaning, but frankly it’s a joke, the public deserve better and the journalists deserve better. The PCC clearly has neither the will nor the ability to change things. What we need is an independent body, that is robust, effective, and has the powers to investigate and enforce. That would be a major step forward.
The four-page document is the IOC’s attempt to recapture the ground it never had when Twitter became the must-have channel for those competing at the winter Vancouver 2010 games.
In the guidelines the IOC ‘actively encourages and supports athletes and other accredited persons at the Olympic Games to … post, blog and tweet their experiences.’ it directs those competing to avoid using social networking sites ‘for commercial and/or advertising purposes.’ If athletes and other accredited persons do break these guidelines then they risk accreditation being withdrawn. More worrying for athletes is the threat of possible expulsion from the games.
So how will these guidelines affect the work of public relations agencies working with athletes and their sponsors? Will non-accredited sponsors see these guidelines as a red rag to a bull? How strong will ambush marketing play during the 2012 Olympics? Remember how Dutch beer company Bavaria got, as The Daily Telegraph describes, ‘36 women wearing skimpy orange dresses attend the Holland versus Denmark game‘ to promote Dutch Bavaria beer in breach of Fifa guidelines. Organisers of the stunt were then arrested.
What are your thoughts? How important will social networking play for brands that are sitting outside the tent and that will never be able to be a participant in the Olympic experience?
Reputation management as we know is not a new discipline within public relations. The skills needed have been around for many, many years. That said, since today we are influenced by what we read online and what our friends and peers share with us the need and demand for online reputation management (ORM) has dramatically increased.
Reputation is at the core of any business. It shapes our trust with brands and individuals. If that trust is challenged we take our business elsewhere, which is why in today’s real-time and connected world it is essential to keep track of how communities can build or break reputations.
Kenber gave the example of Woburn Safari Park who allegedly paid an agency to bury news stories about a critical report from the Department for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on the conditions of the animals in its care. Weeks after stories were published The Times reported that the park hired the services of an online reputation management agency. If this is all it did then rightly so one can be critical of how it acted given DEFRA’s findings. Certainly not a way of repairing a reputation.
Online reputation management agencies are not public relations agencies. There is a need for their services, but these should be used as part of a much more strategic campaign. Burying bad news and the associated debate that takes place online is not going job is not going to serve a company good in the long-term. In fact it is likely to do further damage.
There is a need for the skills that Kenber highlights. We have seen plenty of examples of how small businesses have suffered because of critical online reviews that have either been wide of the mark or libellous. We should remember that people have different standards and can quickly mount negative online assaults, often without realising how they are opening themselves up to a legal dispute.
PR agencies do use whatever is needed help organisations protect their reputation. But, it is these PR agencies that use these tools in proportion to what is needed to achieve. If a client or employer has messed up the damage has been done. Doing what Kenber talks about only makes matters worse. A professional communications agency would have advised to stay clear of burying bad online news. Agencies that would do this kind of work, do it without understanding the bigger picture.
Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.
Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business. Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.
The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.
Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place. It is part and parcel of what the business world. Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.
That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor? Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged. Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses. Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.
All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.
The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:
Mercurio’s experience appears to lie within the political sector, certainly this was his sole beat between when he graduated from Boston University with a degree in Journalism and until he left The National Journal as Executive Editor.
Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project. Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:
In Mercurio’s opening email on May 3rd, John addresses Chris Soghoian as ‘Mr. Soghoian’. Would a person who had a close working relationship with this blogger address him as ‘Mr’? Isn’t this quite a detached introduction from somebody who does not have a strong working relationship with said blogger?
Mercurio is a Burson’s Director of Media with a background in politics, why is he involved in blogger relations? Surely this would have been the responsibility of a tech team or at least of somebody who would not approach Soghoian with a ‘Mr. Soghoian’.
While Mercurio offered the opportunity of an op-ed piece, why is it he and not somebody with a better working relationship offering Soghoian this opportunity?
Why is Burson using email to connect with bloggers, knowing full well that email correspondence can be leaked?
Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on. Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.
Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics. Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.
From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric. There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.
Hello. I'm Julio Romo. I'm a London-based independent PR, communications consultant and digital strategist. I am also a freelance journalist and trainer, providing insight and consultancy on how to secure better engagement through the changing media and digital landscape.
News Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive James Murdoch this afternoon made the shock announcement of the clousure 168 year old News Of The World (#NOTW).
Since it was made public that journalists had hacked into people’s phones, social media channels vocalised their disgust at the News Of The World with many thousands targeting companies, calling on them to remove their advertising from the title.
News Of The World – The Tip Of The Privacy Iceberg
Thursday, July 7th, 2011UK national tabloid The News Of The World (#NOTW) is caught in the eye of a very public storm as revelations allege their involvement in the phone hacking of not just the murdered Milly Dowler, but the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and victims of the July 7th London bombing.
The esteemed Nicholas Tomalin, said that ‘the only qualities needed for real success in Journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.‘ He was not wrong.
It is this cunning that’s got The Guardian’s Nick Davies the story, as it’s served up insight into the activities that were allegedly common place at the News Of The World. But let’s not single them out exclusively. News outlets are in competition with one another and it would be odd to think that they were the only ones guilty. In fact, In the 2006 ‘What Price Privacy Now?’ report (below) the Information Commission highlighted that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information. Have a look at the list and you’ll be surprised by some of the titles that were named and shamed. The various reports confirm two methods that journalists and private investigators use to get information, including, ‘through corruption, or more usually by some form of deception, generally known as ‘blagging’. Blaggers pretend to be someone they are not in order to wheedle out the information they are seeking.’
What Price Privacy Now Notw
Phone-hacking is really just the tip of the iceberg. Given that most people do not change the default password on their phone it is pretty easy to intercept voice messages. But, getting information on addresses, car registration requires deception and/or as the law describes, corruption.
The above report highlights the case of how in November 2006 Stephen and Sharon Anderson of St Ives in Cambridgeshire pleaded guilty to obtaining and selling information unlawfully whilst operating as private investigators. They used ‘blagging’ techniques to obtain and attempt to obtain personal information about individuals from a number of organisations including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, British Telecommunications plc and various banks.
So, while our eyes are currently on The News Of The World, the real question is, what about organisations that private investigators get their data from? How safe is your data – your bank details, phone numbers, your bills and tax information? And how ready are these businesses for the questions that must be asked? If you work PR in-house or agency-side are you ready for the reputation of your client or employer being questioned? And questions about how safe customers data is? And today, when we work online, how safe our our emails and our personal profiles?
News Of The World’s official line that it was all down to a ‘rogue reporter’ just did not wash from a public relations perspective. While it might have held back the criticism, it was like putting a finger in the dam.
Some newsrooms are aggressive places with boiler-room like cultures. You have to get the story. You don’t ask questions about the how, you just need to make sure that all the pieces fit together and that your legal team sign it off. All of course with the safety net of ‘Public Interest.’ But what is the definition of public interest? And why is the very quiet Press Complaint Commission so neutral? The PCC’s statement was just pointless.
Carter-Ruck Partner Magnus Boyd says, “public interest is always the justification used for such intrusion. It appears the lack of an adequate definition of public interest has allowed many spurious claims to the public interest.“ He says, “At the moment only Ofcom and the PCC offer working definitions of what is in the public interest and both are deliberately vaugue so as to retain sufficient flexibility and applicability.”
“Conversely, however, the lack of precision in the definition of ‘public interest’ allows the concept to be cited on ‘a rather tired and formulaic basis’ in many cases as Mr Justice Eady noted. What is interesting to the public may not neceassarily be in the public interest but we can no longer afford to seek to define it by ommission or by the adage, ‘you’ll know it when you see it’.” We need to define what the public interest is in a way that the general public can understand and relate to and which will have sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing circumstances without being all things to all men”
Talking about celebrity reporting Boyd goes on to explain, “Ironically, celebrity reporting usually requires the least invasive investigation techniques – there are usually people ready to talk off the record and perpetuate the gossip. What may well emerge from recent events is that hacking and blagging were used far more in the investigation of financial and corporate stories than readers may have realised as well as more general news items.”
Up an until The Guardian revealed that the phone of Milly Dowler had been hacked the story seemed distant from the public. It was an issue that just affected celebrities, people, as some might claim, that courted the media. But knowing to what lengths certain media outlets would go to has turned the tide.
A social media campaign by the public has been targeting not just readers of the paper but companies that advertise in the News of the World. Public revulsion is pushing this gossip paper into a tight corner. Companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, NPower, Virgin Holidays have cut their advertising from the title.
The Daily Telegraph’s Harry Wallop commented on Twitter, ‘NotW makes c£35m from ads + c£135m from sales. Few weeks of dropped ads won’t hit paper hard. Reader loyalty is what matters.’
The community is using Twitter and Facebook to spread their disgust and it’s having an impact, with subscribers to The Sun and other News International cancelling their subscriptions.
Social media can whip-up a storm and highlight public sentiment in real-time. Give the community and argument and it will express it’s view. But let’s remember, they are not the only guilty party and PR’s need to be ready for the questions about data, information and privacy that now need to be asked.
****UPDATE***
The Press Complain’s Commission yesterday released a statement that, well, didn’t say much apart from it being unhappy with the conduct of one of it’s members.
In Press Gazette today, Dominic Ponsford highlights how a Independent Enquiry might (we hope) focus on the role of the PCC.
Labour MP Alun Michael, himself a former journalist, speaking in an emergency debate about phone-hacking in the Commons yesterday, said: “The PCC is well meaning, but frankly it’s a joke, the public deserve better and the journalists deserve better. The PCC clearly has neither the will nor the ability to change things. What we need is an independent body, that is robust, effective, and has the powers to investigate and enforce. That would be a major step forward.
Tags: #notw, blagging, investigation, journalism, media, news, pr, privacy, public relations, publishing, reputation, social media, social networking
Posted in comment, news, reputation | No Comments »