“The Kiwi cornflour contamination case”, in C Galloway & K Kwansah-Aidoo, Public Relations Issues and Crisis Management, Thomson, Melbourne.
Peart’s professional background, as the director in a public relations consultancy in New Zealand, allows him to contribute to the academic field of public relations (PR) issues and crisis management. His article explores the relationship between journalists and PR practitioners to practicing media relations during a crisis.
The author suggests that majority of the published articles are based on the PR practitioners sources (p.60). By providing a statistic surveyed in Australia, Peart shows that the PR practitioners are perceived as having the access to manage the information, while journalists have the authority to control the message that is shared with the public. In addition, Peart states, “journalists and PR practitioners must survive in the limelight of public opinion” (p.59). This portrays that opinion shapes reality in a PR world. Hence, opinion should be taken into serious consideration as it may have greater impact on the crisis. He also advises readers that immediate information, without disclosing confidential information or jeopardizing the company’s reputation, is vital for journalists to obtain facts and the company’s responsibility (actions) regarding the crisis. As Fortune has stated, “Be a source before you are subject” (p. 65). By providing a direct access to the CEO or arranging a live interview with the journalists creates transparency and adds credibility to the affected companies.
Journalists are thirsty for information. Hence, the PR practitioners are in need to provide valid information with a two-way communication process. This way, both groups comprehend the company’s position and ensure the company for a balanced coverage. For instance, the Kiwi cornflour contamination case provides a good example of how the affected companies handled the case differently. Peart points out that different approaches have different outcomes. This can be seen from the positive, negative, and balanced outcome from several companies. This is due to the level of professionalism or background that the PR practitioners have or comprehend towards managing a crisis with the journalists (p.62). The companies do not necessarily have to result in a negative coverage when dealing with crisis. If handled properly, the company can emerge from crisis and can be turned into an opportunity. As a result, this article illustrates the strengths by reminding the reader that it is not the crisis that causes the collapse of the company, but the poor handling between the PR practitioners and journalists.
Although Peart’s article consists of systematic advices towards how to manage or deal with crisis from the PR practitioners and journalist’s perspectives, planning and timing are not comprehensively discussed. Certainly, planning is the essential factor in diminishing the negative impact of a crisis. These negative impacts are: financial loss, negative coverage, and unsupportive feedback from the public. The author should have discussed on how to anticipate potential problems and on how to properly package the message to the media. By doing so, PR practitioners will save time during crisis. Moreover, in Peart’s article, the case was strongly presented from the journalists’ point of view. The affected companies should have shared their reasons why they reacted negatively to the journalists. Although the article focuses on the journalists’ views, the opinions should have relatively balanced arguments from both sides. This way, readers would have a better understanding that PR practitioners and journalists compliment each other’s workforce.
Seemingly, PR practitioners and journalists are two professions that both deal with pressure. From the article, it is seen that PR practitioners need to increase their professionalism as news communicator, while the journalists create an intense environment to generate as much news to the public. Whether or not it is credible, it is up to the journalists to triple check the source. Although, Peart’s article slightly touched the interaction between the two professions for their responsibility with the news by having the possibilities of the positive and negative effect, yet, the article does not evaluate the quality of the reports by the journalists that has been portrayed by the PR practitioners.
