Good morning all and Happy Monday!
Last week was a little crazy for me clearly, but I wanted to get it on and poppin this week.
I am clearly behind on all "Miracle on the Hudson" follow-up but there was one thing I still wanted to mention.
First of all I happened to be working from my client’s office in NJ by the George Washington Bridge the Thursday the plane made the emergency landing on the Hudson River.
Ironically, my co-worker moments before the crash said to us, "Why is that plane flying so low?", but just like many other desensitized New Yorkers we kept on working, only to be shocked when I got the text from my SO telling me what happened.
I am certain we have all heard the “Bird” scenario for this crash. I do believe the pilot did an awesome job and very smart maneuver in his landing. No argument there, but do you believe that BIRDS are to blame for the plane being in trouble in the first place????
Most of the people I spoke to didn’t believe the story, but the media made it their business to bombard us with experts, statistics, etc. to prove that YES! birds could have only been the reason for this and I feel a lot of people took it in hook, line and sinker.
Many of us doing PR realize how we present stories to be covered so that we can get our clients positioned in a certain way. Now if we can get people to essentially believe a certain story, isn’t possible we are being “worked” in the same way everyday?
Now, I pose a question to you all today. How much of what you hear and read in the media do you believe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Soror! Neat blog.
As PR pros, we know the difference in what is seen and heard via the media because we are there behind the scenes pitching, briefing, angling and making the story work for clients. On the PR side you understand what takes place to build a story so when you hear it story, sometimes you become subjective. It could be the exact truth or it could somewhat spun, both in PR and journalism.
But in journalism, in particular, we know that a story is to be told objectively so that the public can draw their own opinions and conclusions. I don't them we as publicists are being "worked" although we have to work what's best for clients. I do however think that we have a dual responsibility to the public and the client. Ultimately, the impression of media coverage weighs most heavily on them.
Hi Soror! Neat blog.
As PR pros, we know the difference in what is seen and heard via the media because we are there behind the scenes pitching, briefing, angling and making the story work for clients. On the PR side you understand what it takes place to build a story so when you hear it, sometimes you become subjective. It could be the exact truth or it could somewhat spun on both parts, PR and media.
But in journalism, in particular, we know that a story is to be told objectively so that the public can draw their own opinions and conclusions. I don't think we as publicists are being "worked" although we have to work what's best for clients. I do however think that we have a dual responsibility to the public and to the client. Ultimately, the impression of media coverage weighs most heavily on them.
My dad was a cargo pilot for decades, and a passenger pilot for another decade, and he hasn't said anything about the "birds" excuse being improbable...not that I"ve specifically asked him...
As for myself, I never believe what appears in the media... it's all PR!
(Don't mean to denigrate your profession, but journalism has really sold itself out in the last few years!)
Anyway, just discovered your blog, and am looking forward to reading it regularly.
Post a Comment