Journalism vs PR: Who’s Really to Blame in Media Controversies?
In the aftermath of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s remarks regarding Malappuram district, the subsequent protests brought public outrage to the forefront. While the focus has been on the political fallout, a quieter yet equally significant issue has emerged—one involving the ethical role of public relations agencies in media coverage.
It is no secret that the media and PR industries are closely intertwined, often working hand in hand to bring stories, perspectives, and interviews to the public eye. Yet, when controversies arise, it is becoming increasingly common for PR agencies to be scapegoated. The latest example involves the reputable newspaper The Hindu shifting blame onto Kaizzen, a PR agency, for allegedly adding contentious statements to the Chief Minister’s interview.
Kaizzen has since denied that Pinarayi Vijayan is their client and refuted the claims of involvement in manipulating interview content. The real question that emerges here is not just about who is responsible for the statements in question but the broader issue of how PR agencies are portrayed when things go wrong.
The Role of PR: Behind the Scenes, Often Unseen
Public relations agencies play a crucial role in shaping narratives across industries. They connect journalists with sources, coordinate interviews, facilitate major announcements, and provide context that helps shape media coverage. Yet, despite their contributions, PR firms often remain behind the scenes, receiving little to no acknowledgement for their work.
This unspoken arrangement typically works well for both sides. The media gets access to timely information and key figures, while PR agencies help shape the public perception of their clients. However, when controversies or missteps occur, the anonymity PR professionals usually operate under can become a liability. Agencies are sometimes named and blamed without sufficient evidence or explanation, and their involvement—whether real or perceived—quickly becomes the focus.
Shutapa Paul, Founder of Dharma Media Consultants, highlights the disproportionate portrayal of PR agencies in such situations, stating, “It’s evident that PR agencies are often dragged through the mud in negative situations, while their positive contributions are ignored. The incident highlights the need for a more balanced portrayal of PR agencies, acknowledging their crucial role in facilitating communication and providing valuable information, rather than just scapegoating them when times are tough.”
This perspective points to a crucial element often overlooked in media-PR relationships: journalistic responsibility. While it is true that PR agencies provide information and suggest narratives, it is ultimately the media’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy, balance, and fairness of what they publish. When agencies are blamed for content that appears in stories, it can obscure the critical role that journalists and editors play in vetting that content.
The Ethics of Naming PR Agencies
One of the most significant ethical dilemmas in these situations is whether PR agencies should be publicly named when controversies emerge. While transparency in journalism is critical, selectively naming PR agencies can paint them in a negative light, especially when there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing. Worse, it risks reinforcing negative stereotypes about PR professionals as spin doctors or manipulators, undermining the valuable and legitimate work they do in managing public communication.
As Shutapa Paul further elaborates, “Recognising both their challenges and contributions can lead to a more accurate and fair perspective. Having said that, PR agencies need to also be committed to accuracy and confirm information and responses before sharing forward. An essential skill of all PR and communications agencies is the ability to handle crisis situations and manage reputation during controversy.”
The issue of naming PR agencies touches on a broader ethical debate: how transparent should the relationship between PR and the media be? In many cases, PR agencies operate behind the scenes precisely because their role is to amplify their client’s voice, not their own. But when their involvement is highlighted only in controversial situations, it distorts public perception of their work.
PR’s Invisible Contributions: The Selective Acknowledgment Problem
Behind nearly every major interview, event, or corporate announcement is a PR team that has worked to secure access, craft messages, and facilitate media coverage. Yet, these contributions are rarely recognized in the final product. The focus is typically on the subject of the interview or the organization making the announcement, with the PR agency’s role left out of the picture. This lack of recognition is often accepted as part of the job by PR professionals, but it becomes problematic when they are publicly implicated during crises.
This selective acknowledgement reinforces a negative bias toward PR. It contributes to a one-dimensional narrative where PR agencies are seen primarily as entities that “spin” stories or manipulate the media. In reality, PR professionals often work to ensure accuracy, clarity, and fairness in the information being communicated.
Journalistic Responsibility: A Shared Ethical Duty
The ethical question goes beyond the PR industry. When contentious stories surface, the responsibility lies not just with PR professionals but also with journalists and editors. If media outlets choose to publish information provided by a PR agency, it is their responsibility to fact-check and verify the details. This responsibility is a cornerstone of ethical journalism.
Shutapa Paul weighs in on the shared accountability between media and PR, noting, “To foster a more balanced and ethical relationship, the media and PR industries need to prioritise transparency and mutual respect. PR agencies should be clear about their involvement and the nature of their contributions, ensuring there’s no ambiguity, while the media must strive for accuracy and fair reporting, giving due credit to PR agencies for their positive roles.”
There needs to be a shift toward more balanced accountability. Media outlets and PR agencies should foster an environment where both sides take responsibility for the information they handle. Transparency and trust should be built on mutual respect, with an understanding that PR professionals and journalists are both working toward the goal of delivering accurate information to the public.
Moving Forward: A Call for Ethical Accountability
At the heart of this issue is a call for greater ethical accountability on both sides. PR agencies should continue to advocate for clearer terms in their relationships with media outlets, ensuring that their role is understood, respected, and recognized in appropriate contexts. At the same time, media outlets must be more judicious in how they portray PR agencies, ensuring that blame isn’t disproportionately placed on the shoulders of those who facilitate access but don’t write the stories.
Shutapa Paul concludes, “By maintaining open communication and ethical practices, both industries can work together more cohesively and efficiently, building trust, and promoting a fairer portrayal of their collaborative efforts.”
In an era where news and narratives are increasingly shaped by collaborations between PR and the media, both industries must acknowledge their shared responsibility. Naming a PR agency in contentious situations should never be a substitute for journalistic rigour. Instead, it should prompt a deeper reflection on the responsibilities each industry holds and how they can work together to foster trust and credibility.