Happy New Year...and a new year of communications to write about.

My good friend, Professor Les Potter wrote in his blog, More With Les, the following passage from his post titled "2008 in review -- why bother?":

“…Journalism is dead. It killed itself by cutting out its credibility. RIP New York Times, Washington Post, et al. Now what do I tell my highly ethical PR students about media relations, about building relationships with journalists? My PR students are steeped in the ethical and legal aspects of communication/public relations, including fairness and balance. They get it.

“The failing economy heightened the need for communicators/public relations practitioners to understand the relevant topics of finance, economics, and business management, with an emphasis on employee communication. I’ve been preaching this for decades, but I believe that this financial crisis finally drove home the message.

“I have seen a renewed effort by communicators/public relations practitioners to learn how to communicate about economic and financial issues in order to be more effective in representing their organizations with key publics. That makes me very happy indeed….”

I’m not sure how I feel about the first paragraph. Is journalism dead? Or are the editors taking liberties or failing to stop their writers from taking liberties with the facts and stories? Has it changed or has it actually always been this way to one degree or another? Look at the Walter Isaacson’s “Benjamin Franklin” and read about how slanted journalism was in the days of our country’s birth. Similarly, read in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” about the journalism of Abraham Lincoln’s days.

On the other hand, like Les, I’ve had it. I’m fed up. As much as I enjoy politics and political discussions, and like to keep up with the news, here and abroad, I’ve cancelled my subscription to the Washington Post. The straw was an issue with their customer relations (no surprise) in a delivery problem, but the real root of it goes back to the column by their own ombudsman admitting a significant bias in the supposedly objective news reporting of the election. Printed, of course, after the election was over, deal done.

I will say this regarding the question about what to tell his students -- Les, give them the biggest assignment they'll ever get as they graduate...Change things. Keep the vision of the ideal of objective journalism, and strive for it in any way they have at their disposal. True, these graduates will be on the PR side of things, as opposed to the journalistic side, but we all can have an impact in various ways. If more, like me, drop subscriptions, informing these so-called paragons of objective journalism of our discontent with their failure to live up to the moniker they give themselves, perhaps they'll make a business decision to steer back.

Affecting the downturn of journalism, too, is the effect of the internet and citizen journalists and bloggers, also not known for objectivity or credentialing. But I believe Shel Holtz is right, that new media does not kill old media, but rather forces it to adjust. It'll be interesting to see how mainstream media deals with the threat of new media and the dissatisfaction of subscribers hungry for unbiased reporting.

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with Les that I see communicators becoming more intellectual, business- and bottom line-oriented, learning more about finance and business strategy and therefore representing themselves and the industry of communications better to corporate America. I am also heartened by that as well.

So Happy New Year! Let's make it a better one than the last one!