After reading Tom Foremski’s post suggesting that all press releases be marked “Not to Be Distributed by News Aggregators” I hesitated to write this post, because my initial reaction was driven by emotion and not rational thought.  After sitting on it for almost a week, I found that many of my initial thoughts still persisted.

Let me start off by saying that I respect Tom Foremski.  Some of his posts have led to important changes in the PR industry.  In addition, I don’t think Tom believes that all PR people are out to deceive or manipulate the system.  That being said, I think he might have overstepped his bounds a little bit on this one.

First, let’s look at Tom’s underlying message that journalists are independent, objective reporters of the news.  This is certainly the intent of a free press in a democratic nation, but I think most of us can agree it is not the outcome.  You mean to tell me that the New York Times is not a liberal slanted paper, and the Wall Street Journal is not a conservative slanted paper?  Taking a leap of faith and calling the stories of journalists unbiased would be an injustice.

Now that I got that off my chest, down to the PR part of this.

There is a sweeping assumption made here that all PR people are out to deceive—plain not true.  Are advertisers required to put a statement across the front of their ads saying this information is intended to promote the products of XYZ company?  In most cases: no.  Discerning people understand the dynamic at play.  And aren't we already disclosing the source of the content?  Content written by a journalist has a byline from a journalist.  Company press releases are marked as such, and have company and PR contacts listed.  Is this not transparency?  My other issue with Tom’s post is the idea that press releases are not news.  If a journalist writes a story based on my client’s announcement in a press release, how is that not news?  It may not be the same “spin” (yes, journalists spin too) that a reporter might put on it, but it is the story my client believes is important to the industry.

I do appreciate the need to uphold ethical business practices.  But, Tom's intended goal (in his own words) is to "allow people to make their own judgment on the quality of the content."   By putting a disclaimer across the top that says our purpose is to promote a product, are we not cheapening the message contained in that release?  In effect, we would be removing any hope of allowing a consumer to judge the quality of the content because we are telling them up front that we have a hidden agenda.