Media - what to do when the facts are wrong published September 2003 In the rush to lead with news, it’s not surprising  the daily media is getting facts wrong.  And given the way media is now structured a story that has facts that are wrong can spread like a virus nationwide and world-wide within hours.  Or it can sit within an electronic file only to be accessed weeks or months later and cause another outbreak. The reasons for media getting the facts wrong are varied: most media are working in extremely pressured environments and are having to write more stories daily than ever before, the time available to check and authenticate material is less, information that goes into stories is often accessed from external electronic sources and its accepted that someone else has got the facts right, more and more news is becoming a commodity - and competitive - item where the emphasis is on speed to get it out. A story that is filed in Sydney at 4pm can immediately be spread into 100 or more media outlets and result in blanket radio and TV evening coverage followed by print in the morning.  When an organisation discovers it has been maligned and gets onto the matter ‘in the morning’ it’s usually too late - it was yesterday’s news and the media has moved onto today’s issue, leaving misinformation and errors of fact in its wake. So what’s the answer for the PR person who often gets landed with the job of fixing it - without senior management having any comprehension as to how difficult this can be? A key factor will be the type of organisation that has been maligned.  A Government Dept, a public company, a health/pharmaceutical marketer will each have different criteria to consider. It is also important to establish whether the story is really wrong and damaging and whether people are likely to make wrong decision on the basis of it? Or has the story simply got gabled and not been told well? Points to bear in mind include; media people, more than most, do not like it being pointed out that they made a mistake, unless there are exceptional circumstances the chances of getting a correction sent out by the media that originated the story are very slim.  And the chances of getting media that merely repeated the story to run a correction are virtually zero, unless you act with 24 hours of the original story the opportunity has gone. Some organisations that have found themselves either grossly misreported on a single item or find that misreporting happens constantly are resorting to fighting back using the web.  They are moving to ‘truth sites’ or sections within the Newsrooms on their sites where they refute inaccurate reporting. USPS in the US, which claimed to have been the subject of persistent misreporting, finally choked when an item about it ran on ABC News; “20/20”.  It sought redress from the media and when it got none it set up a link - ‘Setting The Record Straight’  (click here).  Even if it had little impact with media the organisation’s 700,000 employees reportedly applauded the company ‘showing it wasn’t going to sit back and let people take potshots’ at it. And Coca-Cola in the US has adopted a similar strategy.  Tired of combating false accusations, it has created a ‘Myth/Rumour’ link (click here) on its website.  This site has three sub sections addressing rumours and accusations. In Australia, the Australian Sugar Industry, which in July discovered that media ‘hyping’ alleging addiction to sugar was based on false reports, chose to take a similar approach showing how Australian media had ‘got it wrong’.  It has also listed other examples where it claims the media has misreported it. The jury is out on the effectiveness of this tactic. Some feel that putting this information on web sites simply draws further attention to rumours and mis-statements by the media.  Other feel that it might make the company feel good but the media, which it is often aimed at, don’t even see it. Others disagree saying that because of the nature of media, and the fact that rumours fly so fast, organisations have a responsibility to state the facts.  And that they should stand up to the media. There’s also the view that because media are increasingly using Newsrooms on web sites for information, (click here) organisations which are misreported should highlight in these sections as a warning to media to be more careful in their reporting and to ‘get it right next time’! Click here to go to our Media section of PR Influences. There's more than 70 stories on different aspects of dealing with the media.

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: PR Tips: Media - what to do when the facts are wrong. Information Content: Media & Media Relations