PR Commentary on Current Events, No Thanks

“I’d like more PR com­ment­ary on cur­rent events.”

This is com­mon feed­back, but I’m not accom­mod­at­ing this request. There are two main reas­ons for this: one is excess­ively more dis­turb­ing than the other.

Here we go:

Reason 1: Evergreen as a Strategy

I try to be mind­ful of the Follower Contract:

If I prom­ise to be a des­tin­a­tion for the latest PR com­ment­ary on cur­rent events, I must be able to deliv­er on that prom­ise long-term. Since I run a busi­ness based on advising organ­isa­tions, I share ever­green con­tent instead of news commentary.

Doing both could be a bad strategy. If half the return­ing read­er­ship comes for ever­green con­tent and the oth­er half for news com­ment­ary, search engines and social media algorithms, I increase the risk of dis­ap­point­ing half of that read­er­ship — half of the time.

Splitting the return­ing read­er­ship into two halves also makes it expo­nen­tially harder for search engines and social media algorithms to sug­gest my con­tent to the right type of audi­ence. Suppose I dis­ap­point half of the return­ing read­er­ship half of the time. In that case, I’ll trick the algorithms into index­ing my con­tent at a much lower qual­ity level from an engage­ment perspective.

Providing PR com­ment­ary on cur­rent events is a poten­tially excel­lent con­tent strategy. Running two par­al­lel con­tent strategies and risk­ing them can­cel­ling each oth­er out is the issue.

But there’s a more dis­turb­ing reas­on, too.

Reason 2: The Media Polarisation Model

The Media Polarisation Model

We often hear how the media cli­mate is “polar­ised” — a known and reas­on­ably well-under­stood effect of clas­sic media logic.

It also seems true that social media logic has amp­li­fied the effects of polar­isa­tion by group­ing people into echo cham­bers where con­firm­a­tion bias, con­ver­sion the­ory, and the hos­tile media effect are allowed to roam freely without any checks and balances.

“Political elites, par­tis­an media, and social media con­trib­ute to soci­et­al-level polit­ic­al polar­iz­a­tion, lead­ing to mis­per­cep­tions of divi­sion among the elect­or­ate and fuel­ing anim­os­ity and actu­al ideo­lo­gic­al polar­iz­a­tion over time.”
Source: Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences ¹Wilson, A., Parker, V., & Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the con­tem­por­ary polit­ic­al and media land­scape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223 – 228. … Continue read­ing

More pro­foundly, media polar­isa­tion is prob­lem­at­ic because it draws false lines between extremes that aren’t neces­sar­ily per­pen­dic­u­lar. These “false lines” will force oth­er­wise bal­anced media con­sumers to place them­selves between the media-sug­ges­ted extremes.

At the extremes, sheltered by the social safety of a like-minded peer group (i.e. echo cham­ber), it’s pos­sible to dis­reg­ard oppos­ing evid­ence as “attacks” on their pos­i­tion. As the amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is states, any such attacks will only strengthen the pos­i­tion of the extremes.

The Post-Truth Zone

The amp­li­fic­a­tion hypo­thes­is sus­tains a “Post-Truth Zone” at the extremes through media polar­isa­tion. If a) the zone is wide enough and b) the extremes are suf­fi­ciently close to each oth­er, the forced “bal­anced” pos­i­tion between them will also res­ult in the “Post-Truth” Zone.

“Post-truth is a soci­et­al phe­nomen­on, influ­enced by the expect­a­tion that hon­esty is the default pos­i­tion, and the pub­lic tol­er­ance of inac­cur­ate and undefen­ded alleg­a­tions in polit­ics.”
Source: Nature ²Higgins, K. (2016). Post-truth: a guide for the per­plexed. Nature, 540, 9 – 9. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​3​8​/​5​4​0​0​09a

Since the forced “bal­anced” pos­i­tion will have a hard time shel­ter­ing any­one from our fear of social isol­a­tion, the spir­al of silence par­tially explains why extremes are so effect­ive in silen­cing the major­ity of oth­er­wise bal­anced media con­sumers. ³Silfwer, J. (2020, June 4). The Spiral of Silence. Doctor Spin | The PR Blog. https://​doc​tor​spin​.net/​s​p​i​r​a​l​-​o​f​-​s​i​l​e​n​ce/

More often than not, in a post-truth soci­ety, hav­ing no opin­ion sud­denly seems like the only ration­al escape.

The iron pre­scrip­tion (men­tal mod­el). Senior advisor Charlie Munger argued: “I have what I call an ‘iron pre­scrip­tion’ that helps me keep sane when I nat­ur­ally drift toward pre­fer­ring one ideo­logy over anoth­er. I feel that I’m not entitled to have an opin­ion unless I can state the argu­ments against my pos­i­tion bet­ter than the people who are in oppos­i­tion. I think that I am qual­i­fied to speak only when I’ve reached that state” (Knodell, 2016). ⁴Knodell, P. A. (2016). All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll nev­er go there: Buffett & Munger – A study in sim­pli­city and uncom­mon, com­mon sense. PAK Publishing.

Learn more: The Media Polarisation Model

Why Media Polarisation is Disturbing

Just like every­one else, I have per­son­al opin­ions. However, as a PR pro­fes­sion­al with 18+ years of exper­i­ence, I can ana­lyse any media issue based on stra­tegic com­mu­nic­a­tion — without sid­ing with any of the extremes.

No mat­ter how pro­fes­sion­al my ana­lys­is of a cur­rent media issue is, I will suf­fer blow­back from extremes, with no back­ing from the silent major­ity what­so­ever. I could, of course, steer clear of the “false line,” but then it wouldn’t be a media ana­lys­is anymore.

Media trends tend to be cyc­lic­al, and I assess that the post-truth era peaked in 2019. I believe the pan­dem­ic, fol­lowed by glob­al infla­tion and AI pro­gress, will dampen the media’s interest in extreme pos­i­tions and shrink the width of the post-truth zone.

Still, it’s dis­turb­ing that the cor­rect busi­ness decision for many aca­dem­ics, pro­fes­sion­als, and organ­isa­tions is to stra­tegic­ally steer clear of top­ics taken “host­age” by extremists.

“Post-truth com­mu­nic­a­tion has shaped our under­stand­ing of truth, polit­ics, and the media, with its impact on pub­lic policy, his­tory, and social media.”
Source: Social Studies of Science ⁵Sismondo, S. (2017). Post-truth? Social Studies of Science, 47, 3 — 6. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​1​7​7​/​0​3​0​6​3​1​2​7​1​7​6​9​2​076

PR Commentary, No Thanks

It’s a shame, really. From a media per­spect­ive, we live in a time when there’s an abund­ance of cur­rent events worth ana­lys­ing from a PR per­spect­ive. Today, the dis­course around cur­rent events is much too polar­ised — and as a per­son who favours win-win and bal­ance in my per­son­al life, I refuse to incentiv­ise extreme positions.

It’s a for­cing myth per­pet­rated by the extrem­ists them­selves that all com­pet­ent pro­fes­sion­als who are choos­ing the silent path are doing so because they fear being “exposed” by can­cel cul­ture. It’s rather a 100% ration­al busi­ness decision in a post-truth world.

PR Resource: More Media Logic

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

Spin’s PR School: Free Media PR Course

Elevate your pub­lic rela­tions skills with this free Media PR Course—a must-have resource for all aspir­ing pub­lic rela­tions pro­fes­sion­als. Boost your career now!

Media Theory

• The Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication
• The Spiral of Silence
• Conversion Theory: The Disproportionate Influence of Minorities
• The Hostile Media Effect: How We Demonise the News Media
• Information Asymmetry: The Informed Minority Advantage
• The Bandwagon Effect: Momentum Is Everything
• The Media Polarisation Model

Media Logic

• Media Logic is Dead, Long Live Media Logic
• Social Media Logic: The Amplification of Media Effects

Digital Media

• The Electronic Age and The End of the Gutenberg Galaxy
• Echo Chambers: Algorithmic Confirmation Bias
• Confirmation Bias in Media: The Echo Chamber Challenge

Learn more: All Free PR Courses

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR.

PR Resource: The Media Blackout

The Media Blackout Tactic

Refusing to answer journ­al­ist­ic ques­tions used to be a big no-no in pub­lic rela­tions. However, this pro­fes­sion­al eth­os is under­go­ing some changes.

More and more organ­isa­tions are delib­er­ately avoid­ing any inter­ac­tion with tra­di­tion­al news media:

Media black­out = when an organ­isa­tion inten­tion­ally avoid enga­ging with leg­acy news media, often to con­trol the nar­rat­ive and pro­tect interests. Journalists cri­ti­cise this prac­tice as it obstructs invest­ig­at­ive report­ing and under­mines inform­a­tion transparency.

Media Blackouts are the res­ult of unfair rules of engage­ment in a “Post-Truth” media landscape:

Media mine­field = the post-truth media land­scape where inter­ac­tions with leg­acy news media often res­ult in delib­er­ate mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion. Organisations nav­ig­ate this ter­rain cau­tiously to avoid dam­aging their repu­ta­tion and pub­lic image.

The Media Analysis

To resolve the situ­ation, we face two main challenges:

However, as a PR pro­fes­sion­al with 18+ years of exper­i­ence, I believe we will fall short on both these challenges.

Traditional news media will con­tin­ue to fall apart, and the erosion of trust in organ­isa­tions will be one of the many con­trib­ut­ing factors. Organisations will likely opt for post-truth strategies, lead­ing to organ­isa­tion­al cor­ro­sion from the inside out.

“Post-truth is a soci­et­al phe­nomen­on, influ­enced by the expect­a­tion that hon­esty is the default pos­i­tion, and the pub­lic tol­er­ance of inac­cur­ate and undefen­ded alleg­a­tions in polit­ics.”
Source: Nature ⁶Higgins, K. (2016). Post-truth: a guide for the per­plexed. Nature, 540, 9 – 9. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​3​8​/​5​4​0​0​09a

Instead, new “soci­et­al pil­lars” must be born out of the rubble: a new form of inde­pend­ent news media based on trust (not clicks or ideo­logy) and a new form of suc­cess­ful organ­isa­tions based on trans­par­ency (not avoid­ance or exploitation).

Learn more: The Media Blackout: When PR Declines Media Interviews