Journalism Versus PR Writing: a Short Essay
An aspiring writer in journalism may consider, at some point, work in the field of Public Relations. While there are similarities between the work of a journalist and that of a P. R. writer, the different objectives of the two usually mean a different approach.
First, the similarities. Writers on both platforms need to use basic “news values” to produce something that will interest readers. Is it relevant to the reader? Is it exciting or informative? Is it current and accurate? A journalist and a PR writer both need to write something people will want to read.
Additionally, there is a lot of overlap in writing style between the two writers. According to Media Writing: A Practical Introduction by Batty and Cain, “The rules for PR writing are: simple words, short sentences, natural writing, active voice. The ultimate goal is to write so the reader can understand.” These “rules” are simple principles that apply to various forms journalistic writing as well. From there the two paths diverge.
The differences between the journalist and the PR writer revolve around their differing objectives. Ideally, the journalist does not represent any entity beyond the publication she works for. She seeks to inform the reader with somewhat balanced and interesting writing. Her reputation and that of her employer depends upon her sticking close to all of the known facts. Of course, she also wants to attract readers, to “sell more newspapers,” as we used to say.
A PR writer, on the other hand, represents someone. He needs to make his company or client look good. His job is to create and maintain a favorable reputation for his client. Although he usually doesn’t write outright lies (except perhaps when working in politics), he’ll hide certain facts while trumpeting others to fortify his client’s reputation.
To illustrate how differing goals mean different presentation of facts, contrast these articles dealing with the Clinton Foundation. The first, from the New York Times, reveals facts that might not be good for the Foundation’s reputation. It ties the Foundation to a Russian move to control the U.S.’s uranium reserves. Articles found on the Clinton Foundation website can be expected to have a different tone, like this one covering a favorable rating it received. You will likely find nothing about Russian uranium on the Clinton Foundation website.
Another example of PR’s objectives slanting presentation of facts can be discerned in a video interview with a spokesman for the American Red Cross. While the amount of writing involved to pre-script this interview is unknown, certainly the support for the client is clear. The Red Cross derives two-thirds to three-quarters of its revenue from the sale of blood and products derived from blood. The rise in bloodless surgery centers and doctors reluctant to transfuse constitute a threat to the organization’s bottom line. Thus a potential crisis is being headed off, another job of the PR writer. The dangers of blood transfusion is minimized, and the fatality figure cited, while legitimate from one angle, represents a fraction of the deaths transfusions have contributed to. A more journalistic interview on a danger of blood use was run on NPR.
Of course, not all PR work involves slanting some facts and hiding others. Articles, brochures, ads and such can simply announce to the public a new service or product for its use. It can be simple, straight-forward and happy. Here’s a brochure as an example.
PR writing might entail factual press releases with little data manipulation, as with this UN press release. Such an article might be close enough to journalism that a news outlet will run it with little or no adjustment.
In summary, the different goals of journalists and PR writers may mean diverse approaches. However, there certainly is overlap. People should be able to believe what they read from such non-fiction sources. And although PR writers might loathe journalists who want to dig up unpleasant facts about their clients, and journalists might mistrust PR writers in the reliability of their facts, the two often work together to inform us, the general public.