What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
There’s a fine old Southern saying. Well, now that I think about it, I’m not certain it’s exclusively Southern, but it is a fit comment for a growing trend among media moguls.
 
I’m talking about the big-company news media fat cats who sit in their office towers pondering their P&Ls and issuing “statements” through their public relations types while they simultaneously run a string (or several strings) of reporters who go around whining about the ethics of having to deal with another company’s spokesperson.
 
Maybe it’s just that the moon is in the wrong phase and my aggravation factor is high, but I view this as an onerous double standard, one that seriously jeopardizes the credibility of the news media and heats up the already-bad blood between business people and media people.
 
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black  
What’s my evidence? Well, Bob Williams, who is a senior reporter for the Raleigh, N.C. News & Observer, is also this years Ethics Fellow for the Poynter Institute, an independent journalism school based in Florida. On March 19, Williams posted an essay on the Poynter web site bemoaning the increasing practice by journalists of accepting comment from “spokespeople.”
 
“The use of spokespeople to deal with the media is by no means a new phenomenon, but their role seems to have changed in recent years.” Williams writes. “It seems that even the most mundane inquiries have to go through some sort of public relations professional.”
 
Oh, shudder to think! Sorry for the cynicism, but I told you my aggravation factor is high. Williams even questions whether the use of spokespeople is ethical. A fella has to justify his title by questioning something, I suppose.
 
But hang on, that’s not all the evidence. While the ethics fella is stroking his chin over the validity of a company representative actually representing that company to the news media, news media company higher ups are busy refusing comment to reporters! In the USA Today story about new fees for online video content quoted in this issue of Interviewing, CNN “executives were unavailable for comment” but issued a written statement.
 
Have Your Cake and Eat It Too  
In yet another story, this one in The Washington Times, Robert Albritton, the mover and shaker currently behind Washington D.C.’s WJLA-TV, “declined to be interviewed” for an article about the station’s plans to merge newsrooms with a local cable channel. “Those close to him (Albritton) describe him as an ambitious man with a passion for the media business.” Albritton’s passion for the media business, it would seem, falls somewhat short of honoring this code of so-called ethics that demands access to the primary decision maker in a story.
 
I won’t deny Williams’ assertion that non-media companies, government officials at all levels,  and others are increasing their use of communications professionals to interact with the news media. With new media outlets popping up on every real-life and virtual corner, how could that not happen? But as a long-time corporate spokesperson and counselor to others serving in that role, I do take issue with his questioning the ethical validity of the function, especially when the business leaders of his own profession are equally adept at and willing to employ the tactic as it suits them.
 
Message to Media Moguls: Your reporters are out there in the trenches trying to do a good job (most of them anyway). If you’re seriously interested in making the Ps bigger than the Ls, don’t cut your reporters off at the knees by failing to uphold the same ethical standards they subscribe to.
 
In other words: Practice what you preach!