(2 of 2)
Even among the most sophisticated players, manipulation can be a dirty word. Take the case of William DeJohn and Jay Winsten. As officials of Harvard University's Center for Health Communication, they recommended mass-media campaigns to steer youths away from drug abuse. But they ran into trouble when the New York Times described their two-year study -- which advocated staged news events and the distribution of video press releases to be aired on TV news programs -- as "the manipulation of print and broadcast news." A TV network executive contacted by the reporter denounced the scheme, and center director Winsten found himself furiously backpedaling.
To be sure, Winsten was not promoting anything so egregious as the phony drug bust that the Bush Administration staged in front of the White House last year. He was suggesting speeches, press conferences and strategies aimed at helping health professionals "compete for news coverage." His 45-page study, in fact, was largely devoted to a review of widely used public relations and advertising practices. Nonetheless, Winsten decided to drop the recommendation for video news releases from his report, not wishing to alienate the journalists on whose goodwill much of his program's success would depend.
It is difficult to find heroes and villains. The journalistic world is not like some slave market, in which the roles of exploiter and exploited are clear-cut. It is more like a chaotic bazaar, filled with news peddlers trying to get public exposure and journalists seeking dramatic stories, quotes or facts. Some vendors come to the bazaar for sport: New York hoaxer Alan Abel, for example, specializes in planting false news items, like last fall's stories about the bogus $35 million lottery winner. Others show up because it is their job. Writing in the Gannett Center Journal, Scott Cutlip, a dean emeritus of journalism at the University of Georgia, cited estimates that 40% of the news comes from public relations specialists (who, at 150,000 strong, outnumber the country's 130,000 journalists). Still others try to hawk their stories for money, a trade-off that most respectable publications resist, although "checkbook journalism" is all too common these days.
In such a world, it is difficult to condemn an honest trader. The Harvard researchers have every right to lay their wares on the table and present them in the most appealing light. The role of the press is not to denounce such efforts but to ensure that despite the attractive presentation of merchandise, news standards remain intact.