Some Media-Related Labels We Can Do Without

With so much being written and talked about in the legal marketing arena in reference to social media and other new forms of communication, I thought I would give myself a break in this space and take a nostalgic look backward for a change of pace.

What's in a Name?

Two media labels have come to bother me with the passage of time: investigative journalism and crisis media expert. Both labels are used a great deal these days, in some very self-serving ways. In my mind, the abuse of repetition has diminished the strength of both labels. Let me explain.

I'll start by telling you about my friend Jerry Landauer. Most of you probably don't know the name of this legendary Wall Street Journal reporter, who died too young in 1981 at age 49. Jerry was the consummate print reporter. He very rarely left a second-day lead for any other reporters to pick over, as ants pick over the too-small crumbs that the feeding birds have left behind.

He was thorough, accurate, honest and tough. Here are just a few examples of what he did in his way-too-short life. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Columbia College, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Columbia Daily Spectator. He was a member of the Washington bureau of the Wall Street Journal starting in 1962, after a stint at The Washington Post and United Press International. In 1963, he received the Distinguished Service Award of Sigma Delta Chi, the professional journalism fraternity (now the Society of Professional Journalists), and the Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for his disclosures of the outside business activities of federal judges. He received the Drew Pearson Prize and Worth Bingham Prize for his reporting that led to the resignation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew on Oct. 10, 1973.

In the 1960s, Jerry was one of the first to make a detailed study of the never-ending story of financing practices in Congressional election campaigns, including large contributions to candidates by business interests.

By any measure, then or today, Jerry was one of the greatest investigative reporters who ever lived. And yet, as sure as I am sitting at this computer and keyboarding away, I am sure that Jerry would be turning over in his grave if anyone ever referred to him as an investigative reporter. Jerry was a reporter ' and a reporter was supposed to uncover good stories and tell them. A good reporter was supposed to stay after sources until they gave up everything they had to say. That was reporting ' not investigating. Jerry would probably say that investigating was something that cops did.

In this post-Watergate media world of ours, the term investigative reporter, at least in my mind, has become over-used and abused to mean something that good reporters always did, with a front-page byline serving as a reward as well as any label that many now wear as a badge of excellence. Jerry would say that the byline served him just fine, thank you. Keep the label.

'Crisis Media Expert'

As for crisis media expert, does anyone know any former journalist who is now a consultant who isn't a crisis media expert? I don't think that I do.

If every crisis media expert's list of successfully handled crises were laid next to each other, the world would have come to an end a very long time ago. There would have been far too many crises for the world to have ever endured ' and yet we are still here.

Now, I will take full credit for having been one of those who helped to spread the use of this label. And, over my 30 years of working with law firms, I have helped launch the careers of half-a-dozen self-proclaimed crisis media experts. But I now chastise myself for having done so and ask myself where the line of good media relations expertise ends and crisis media expertise begins. Is it in the number of crises handled? And what constitutes a crisis anyway? Have our criteria for defining a crisis become so soft that there is a very fluffy and blurred line between good PR and crisis media expertise?

After all, as far as I can tell, most legal crises wind up with very little strategic advice being given or used by lawyers. Many PR folks become very adept at saying “no comment” or, worse yet, administrative gatekeepers of the lists of reporters who never get the call-backs that they seek and are often promised. But that isn't managing a media crisis. Maybe they should be called Keeping Reporters at Bay Experts instead.

Conclusion

In our new media world, are these two labels still necessary? Is there a place for them? Is there such a thing as an investigative tweeter? Or investigative blogger? And will some of them refer to themselves as crisis social media experts? How do they differ from regular crisis media experts? Do they only work in the world of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter crises? Will a Pulitzer Prize be given for the Best Investigative Tweet?

I am hoping that all of this label madness will stop one of these days ' ideally, sooner rather than later ' and that a good reporter and a good PR person will be all that we will need. Maybe then a purse will also become just a purse and there will be no need for Coach or Gucci or Prada or LV, and on and on.

But then, maybe you are now ready to label me as an OFD. I'll let you figure out that label.

Jay M. Jaffe, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, has been a legal PR and marketing consultant for more than 30 years. Before that, he was an award-winning print and broadcast journalist, but says he was never an “investigative reporter.” He has “handled” many important crisis management situations, but promises to no longer refer to himself as a “crisis media expert.”

With so much being written and talked about in the legal marketing arena in reference to social media and other new forms of communication, I thought I would give myself a break in this space and take a nostalgic look backward for a change of pace.

What's in a Name?

Two media labels have come to bother me with the passage of time: investigative journalism and crisis media expert. Both labels are used a great deal these days, in some very self-serving ways. In my mind, the abuse of repetition has diminished the strength of both labels. Let me explain.

I'll start by telling you about my friend Jerry Landauer. Most of you probably don't know the name of this legendary Wall Street Journal reporter, who died too young in 1981 at age 49. Jerry was the consummate print reporter. He very rarely left a second-day lead for any other reporters to pick over, as ants pick over the too-small crumbs that the feeding birds have left behind.

He was thorough, accurate, honest and tough. Here are just a few examples of what he did in his way-too-short life. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Columbia College, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Columbia Daily Spectator. He was a member of the Washington bureau of the Wall Street Journal starting in 1962, after a stint at The Washington Post and United Press International. In 1963, he received the Distinguished Service Award of Sigma Delta Chi, the professional journalism fraternity (now the Society of Professional Journalists), and the Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for his disclosures of the outside business activities of federal judges. He received the Drew Pearson Prize and Worth Bingham Prize for his reporting that led to the resignation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew on Oct. 10, 1973.

In the 1960s, Jerry was one of the first to make a detailed study of the never-ending story of financing practices in Congressional election campaigns, including large contributions to candidates by business interests.

By any measure, then or today, Jerry was one of the greatest investigative reporters who ever lived. And yet, as sure as I am sitting at this computer and keyboarding away, I am sure that Jerry would be turning over in his grave if anyone ever referred to him as an investigative reporter. Jerry was a reporter ' and a reporter was supposed to uncover good stories and tell them. A good reporter was supposed to stay after sources until they gave up everything they had to say. That was reporting ' not investigating. Jerry would probably say that investigating was something that cops did.

In this post-Watergate media world of ours, the term investigative reporter, at least in my mind, has become over-used and abused to mean something that good reporters always did, with a front-page byline serving as a reward as well as any label that many now wear as a badge of excellence. Jerry would say that the byline served him just fine, thank you. Keep the label.

'Crisis Media Expert'

As for crisis media expert, does anyone know any former journalist who is now a consultant who isn't a crisis media expert? I don't think that I do.

If every crisis media expert's list of successfully handled crises were laid next to each other, the world would have come to an end a very long time ago. There would have been far too many crises for the world to have ever endured ' and yet we are still here.

Now, I will take full credit for having been one of those who helped to spread the use of this label. And, over my 30 years of working with law firms, I have helped launch the careers of half-a-dozen self-proclaimed crisis media experts. But I now chastise myself for having done so and ask myself where the line of good media relations expertise ends and crisis media expertise begins. Is it in the number of crises handled? And what constitutes a crisis anyway? Have our criteria for defining a crisis become so soft that there is a very fluffy and blurred line between good PR and crisis media expertise?

After all, as far as I can tell, most legal crises wind up with very little strategic advice being given or used by lawyers. Many PR folks become very adept at saying “no comment” or, worse yet, administrative gatekeepers of the lists of reporters who never get the call-backs that they seek and are often promised. But that isn't managing a media crisis. Maybe they should be called Keeping Reporters at Bay Experts instead.

Conclusion

In our new media world, are these two labels still necessary? Is there a place for them? Is there such a thing as an investigative tweeter? Or investigative blogger? And will some of them refer to themselves as crisis social media experts? How do they differ from regular crisis media experts? Do they only work in the world of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter crises? Will a Pulitzer Prize be given for the Best Investigative Tweet?

I am hoping that all of this label madness will stop one of these days ' ideally, sooner rather than later ' and that a good reporter and a good PR person will be all that we will need. Maybe then a purse will also become just a purse and there will be no need for Coach or Gucci or Prada or LV, and on and on.

But then, maybe you are now ready to label me as an OFD. I'll let you figure out that label.

Jay M. Jaffe, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, has been a legal PR and marketing consultant for more than 30 years. Before that, he was an award-winning print and broadcast journalist, but says he was never an “investigative reporter.” He has “handled” many important crisis management situations, but promises to no longer refer to himself as a “crisis media expert.”