The long-held perception of journalists and public relations (PR) practitioners as adversaries is being challenged by new research, suggesting a more complex and collaborative reality. While stereotypes paint journalists as relentless investigators and PR professionals as gatekeepers of information, a deeper look reveals a nuanced professional dynamic. Many journalists transition into PR roles, often seeking better remuneration and job security, a move sometimes humorously termed ‘crossing to the dark side’.
Understanding the Journalist-PR Relationship
Traditionally, the roles appear to be in opposition: journalists are tasked with holding organizations accountable, while PR professionals are employed to represent and communicate on behalf of those same entities. However, this adversarial view simplifies a relationship that, in practice, is far more intricate. Previous studies indicated that despite outward cynicism from New Zealand journalists towards PR, their day-to-day interactions are seldom marked by outright hostility. Instead, the relationship can fluctuate between professional rivalry and pragmatic cooperation.
Recent doctoral research, involving interviews with journalists across New Zealand, further supports this nuanced perspective. The study aimed to move beyond broad questions of PR’s influence on the news agenda and instead focused on a more fundamental aspect: how journalists assess the credibility of the individuals they interact with in the communications field. The research explored whether journalists inherently distrust PR professionals or if they make individual, case-by-case judgments.
Journalists’ Judgments: Attribution Theory in Practice
The interviews revealed that journalists rarely categorize communications professionals into simple ‘good’ or ‘bad’ groups. Instead, they actively engage in assessing the motivations behind a PR practitioner’s actions. This process aligns with attribution theory, which examines how individuals interpret the causes of others’ behavior. Journalists consistently evaluate whether a media advisor or PR professional is genuinely attempting to clarify a complex issue, is bound by organizational or legal constraints, or is actively trying to manipulate or limit media coverage.
These assessments are crucial because journalists view their primary role as serving the public interest. Key journalistic tenets such as fact-checking, consulting multiple sources, and maintaining editorial independence were consistently emphasized by interviewees as core to their work. This inherent skepticism is not exclusive to PR practitioners but extends to virtually all sources journalists engage with.
Furthermore, many journalists acknowledged that PR professionals are often fulfilling the duties for which they are employed. They differentiate between ‘spinning’ information and effectively representing an organization’s legitimate interests. Journalists expressed appreciation for PR practitioners who demonstrated an understanding of newsroom pressures, provided timely and accurate information, and facilitated access to key decision-makers or subject matter experts. These positive interactions, when repeated over time, contribute to building professional reputations. Reliable sources become trusted contacts, while those who consistently provide questionable information are met with greater scrutiny.
It is important to note that even with trusted sources, credibility does not supersede verification. While a trusted contact can streamline the reporting process, journalists maintain that independent verification remains a cornerstone of their role. Professional trust, therefore, is built on earned confidence through consistent, reliable interactions rather than blind faith.
Evolving Landscape: Journalism Under Pressure
These findings emerge at a time when both journalism and public relations are undergoing significant transformations. The PR field has evolved into a more strategic profession, while journalism in New Zealand has faced considerable challenges, including widespread restructuring and the closure of newsrooms. Major redundancies at organizations like TVNZ and the now-defunct Newshub, alongside job cuts at publishers such as NZME and Stuff, have resulted in fewer journalists covering more ground with significantly reduced time and resources.
The shrinking newsroom environment, characterized by fewer reporters, limited specialist colleagues, and heavier workloads, makes the rigorous evaluation of competing claims increasingly difficult. The time-honored practices of verifying information, cultivating professional relationships, and thoroughly examining different perspectives are becoming harder to sustain. As newsroom resources diminish, these essential journalistic tasks face greater pressure, particularly during complex crises or rapidly developing public debates.
The Democratic Imperative
The implications of these changes extend beyond the journalism industry itself. Independent news media play a critical role in a democratic society by scrutinizing governments, corporations, and other powerful institutions. Understanding how journalists make credibility assessments is therefore more vital than ever.
The research suggests that the reality of the journalist-PR dynamic is far more sophisticated than the popular image of perpetual conflict. New Zealand journalists, despite the pressures, appear to retain the capacity for careful professional judgment regarding credibility, motive, and the public interest. In an era marked by media layoffs, the proliferation of online misinformation, and declining public trust in institutions, preserving this capacity for critical judgment may be as crucial as safeguarding the existence of newsrooms themselves.
