<<

Truth and Untruth in in the Battle for Coverage Publicity Stunts in Terms of Factor Theory

Zoë Visser

10151931

Master’s thesis

Graduate School of

Master’s programme Communication Science

Thesis supervisor: dr. J.W. Boumans

Friday June 24th 2016 Abstract

The professions of PR and have been changing and widely discussed by scholars and professionals in both fields. Increasing workload in journalism demands to accept an increasing number of ready-made texts. PR professionals provide such materials, organizing both truthful and untruthful publicity stunts with the aim of becoming the subject of news. Despite all studies on the news selection process, publicity stunts are rarely covered in research. This study aims to take a first step in theorizing both types of stunts in the news process. For this purpose, a quantitative content analysis of the most validated news factors in journalistic selection processes is carried out on a range of stunts and media publications on these stunts in the Netherlands. Results show that publications on untruthful stunts score significantly higher on news factor intensity than truthful stunts, and that non-commercial organizations (governmental and NGOs) score significantly higher on news factor intensity than commercial organizations. No organizational contexts explaining for a higher number untruths in publicity stunts were discovered. It was however found that he of a third of untruthful stunts was doubted by the covering the news , while none of the truthful stunts were questioned. This implies that journalists are capable of distinguishing truthful and untruthful stunts to some extent. Future research could provide more insight in the reasons for launching an untruthful stunt. Since this study has not found organizational circumstances that could predict the incorporation of untruths in stunts, the question remains: what does?

KEYWORDS: journalism, PR, news selection process, , publicity stunts, PR hoaxes, news factor theory.

2

Introduction

Over time, the professions of (PR) and journalism have changed - and so have their mutual relationships. Globalization has led to blurring lines between journalism and other forms of public communication (Deuze, 2008). Nowadays, journalists face the consequences of organizational downsizing and loss of editorial control over the creative process (Deuze, 2008, p. 7). Increasing workload demands journalists to make different choices and accept ready-made source texts more easily, opening up for PR as well.

At first sight that serves a solution to challenging circumstances, but the development has triggered concerns from several angles. In Flat Earth News, (2008) criticized the increasing use of prefabricated news, labelling it as ‘churnalism’. Although churnalism open doors for organizations’ visibility in the media, their PR practitioners have worries about its consequences too (Jackson and Moloney, 2015).

Critics argue that the problem with churnalism is that it enables by sources and threatens the reliability and credibility of the (Davies, 2008; Jackson and

Moloney, 2015). Although these charges are strong, there are some well-known examples of

Dutch journalists feeling misled by sources that presented ready-made news in their own interest (Schreuder, 2014; Schapendonk, 2013). For example in 2013, when Dutch restaurants presenting a Caesar salad on their menu received a reprimanding letter stating that a so-called

‘Caesar Cardini’ had the only lawful patent on the name Caesar. For this reason none of these restaurants would have the right to keep the Caesar salad on their menu. Luckily for many chefs, the patent did not exist: it was a stunt by a brand of salad dressing. But when that came out, several media had unfairly covered the event as news already (Kok, 2013).

Publicity stunts are a favourable means for publicity (Anthill, n.d.). Over years many publicity stunts have been covered in Dutch media (Mulder, 2015). And untruth, such as apparent in the Caesar example, is no requirement for news value since there are completely

3 truthful and transparent examples too (Borgdorff, 2013; Zandberg, 2016). Still, journalists unknowingly allow untruthful stunts in the news (Schreuder, 2014; Schapendonk, 2013). How does this happen? Is it always possible for journalists to see the difference and discover the truth in time?

Similar questions occupy scholars and professionals in the fields of both journalism and PR. It has been extensively studied how certain facts reach the news, and more precisely, how several actors and factors can contribute to this news selection process. Especially news factor theory has provided an interdisciplinary, integrative approach to the news selection process by combing individual perspectives, professional and organizational routines, cultural influences and the public’s perceptions (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013). This approach has therefore given much insight into relevant factors (Schulz, 1976; Eilders, 2006).

One would expect that this large body of research has also addressed the publication success of publicity stunts, being a favourable means for organizations to present their news

(Anthill, n.d.). This is however not the case: not only in news factor theory, but in communication science as a whole, research on publicity stunts is surprisingly scarce.

Publicity stunts have rarely been conceptually defined, and the notions of untruthful stunts or

PR hoaxes seem especially unknown in literature.

The incongruence of the deployment of these stunts with the lack of scientific knowledge on its methods and effectiveness justifies the call for research into this matter.

Therefore, this study applies the knowledge on news factor theory to a sample of Dutch publicity stunts over several years. Both truthful and untruthful publicity stunts will be assessed on a range of the most validated news factors in journalistic selection processes

(Eilders, 2006), in order to answer the central question of this study: “To what extent can truthful and untruthful publicity stunts be characterised in terms of news factor theory?” By combining an exploratory and hypothesis-based approach, this study aims to take a first step

4 in theorizing both untruthful and truthful publicity stunts, covering their methods, characteristics and appearance in the media.

Theoretical Background

In order to understand the function and development of publicity stunts in the news process, the professional roles of relevant actors need to be distinguished first. After conceptualising these roles, it can be clarified how the professions and activities relate to each other.

Publication Relations

Although many different definitions of public relations (PR) have been offered, the activity is generally approached as strategic between an organization and its publics

(Vasquez & Taylor, 2000, p. 324). These publics consist of its employers, customers and prospects, activist groups, NGOs and the financial community (Cornelissen, Carroll & Elving,

2009, p. 2). According to Cornelissen, Carroll and Elving, an important public that is often overlooked in corporate communication literature is the news media (2009, p. 2). This can be explained by the fact that many PR practitioners view the news media as a channel for reaching diverse stakeholders, rather than as a stakeholder or audience themselves

(Cornelissen, 2011, p. 145).

However, communicating with the media is a central activity in publication relations, because these are important for reaching the public (Cornelissen, 2011, p. 145). When communicating with the media, PR practitioners have to make sense of a certain event within the organization, so it can be framed in such a way that the different publics outside of the organization will likely accept its message (Cornelissen, Carroll & Elving, 2009, p.4).

5

Organizations can become a subject of the news because they consciously seek publicity. In this case, an organization can decide to just send out a (Cornelissen,

2011, p. 153), or organize a publicity stunt to display or even create news value (PR stunt, n.d.). Publicity stunts are often regarded as an attempted hype, in which PR is used as a means of generating excitement quickly and artificially (Spicer, 1993, p. 55). Since publicity stunts are not broadly discussed in academic literature, a precise shared definition currently lacks.

On the basis of the previously mentioned characteristics and context, the following definition is developed by for the purposes of this study: “a publicity stunt regards an event that is communicated to the media in order to generate publicity, and ideally excitement, for an organizational issue, product or the organization as a whole”. In practice, many organizations employ press releases to draw public attention to the publicity stunt in the first place.

In order to ‘create’ news value, some organizations tend to go further than others.

Over time, many Dutch publicity stunts have reached the news (Mulder, 2015); but some of these stunts eventually turned out to be completely or partially manipulating truth (Schreuder,

2014; Schapendonk, 2013). Publicity stunts from this untruthful category have in common that these are communicated towards the media with one or more essential aspects of the story consciously hidden, or even replaced with an untrue piece of .

Due to the insufficient conceptualization of publicity stunts so far, exact motives for such decisions have not been defined yet. But considering the media’s request for newsworthiness, it is imaginable that these untrue information aspects are incorporated in order to meet that request. Although it is still unclear whether this serves as a main reason, one can assume that untrue information at least can be employed to optimally meet journalists’ standards for producing newsworthy publications.

6

Journalism

In a fully functioning democratic civilization, citizens need to be informed about relevant issues in society; this function is performed by news media (Yang, Taylor & Saffer, 2016).

The process of gathering, selecting and presenting news allows journalists to decide which parts of reality are represented in the media and how these are framed. This way, journalists shape how the audience sees the world (Broersma, 2007, p. 9). Journalists try to gain authority and autonomy through professional journalistic strategies which reflect their professional ideology (Broersma, 2007, p. 26).

Despite many contradicting perspectives on the exact role and tasks of journalism, a fairly consensual view on ‘journalistic ideology’ has been provided by Deuze (2005). Deuze distinguished several central concepts in the journalistic ideology (2005, pp. 447-450), reflecting journalism’s system of beliefs. He stated that journalists provide public service, inducing rights and responsibilities to the profession (Deuze 2005, pp. 447-448) while deriving its legitimization from journalists’ shared sense of ethics (Deuze, 2005, p. 449; Yang,

Taylor & Saffer, 2016, p. 156). Furthermore, in order to remain independent and credible, journalists should strive to be objective (Harbers, 2015; Luyendijk, 2006; Ryan, 2001;

Broersma, 2010) and thereby autonomous (Broersma, 2007; Deuze, 2005, p. 448). Finally, being immediate is an important requirement for journalists to bring news that is actually topical (Deuze, 2005, p. 449).

The central ideological concepts shape the journalist’s professional identity, which plays a role in work routines, including how journalists communicate with other parties in their job (Cornelissen, Carroll & Elving, 2009). For example, the collective sensemaking process with sources is both guided by the journalist’s beliefs about the significance of the particular event or issue to a wider public and the journalist’s identity as a professional

(Cornelissen, Carroll & Elving, 2009, p. 13).

7

Professional interdependence

Journalists and PR practitioners increasingly work together in the news production process.

Several studies have shown that national news in Dutch currently relies on offered press releases for a third (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013, p. 284). In some of these cases the press release forms an incentive to dive into the topic further and supplement the ready- made publication; in other cases, the pre-fabricated news is completely adopted by the journalist.

Those results reflect trust between both parties, but that is not as self-evident as it seems. Over time, numerous studies have shown journalists’ initial distrust and antagonism towards PR (Kopenhaver, 1985; Ryan & Martinson, 1988; DeLorme & Fedler, 2003), even being reflected in their work. Spicer (1993) found that, in over 80% of mentions of PR in print media, journalists used the terms PR or public relations in a negatively embedded context.

With growing interdependence between the two professions, their mutual relationships have however improved since (Sallot & Johnson, 2006). In the Netherlands, the two professions do no longer experience fundamental problems or predominant negativity in their relationship, despite some professional differences of opinion (Neijens & Smit, 2006). This growth of interdependence and trust can be explained by developments in both fields: while journalists experienced increasing workload (Witschge & Nygren, 2009; Lewis, Williams &

Franklin, 2008), PR professionalised worldwide in the twentieth century (Singh & Smyth,

2000; L’Etang, 1999; Theofilou & Watson, 2014).

For PR practitioners this growing quality of the mutual relationship could be considered an improvement, because it allows them to be effective in their job of reaching the public in service of the client or organization (Yang, Taylor & Saffer, 2016; Vasquez &

Taylor, 2000). But by some this development is feared (Davies, 2008; Jackson & Moloney,

2015).

8

Clashing priorities

The growing interdependence between these professions is rejected by critics because it is feared that the autonomy and quality of journalism are threatened when journalists increasingly rely on sources in their production of news (Davies, 2008). The use of unchecked, ready-made material in news has been conceptualized by Davies as churnalism, a term that expresses criticism to reporters “who spend hours recycling second-hand wire copy and PR material without performing the ‘everyday practices’” (Davies, 2008, p. 59). Davies argues that churnalism enables falsehood, distortion and propaganda of the news.

While journalists emphasize the duty of public service in their codes of ethics, many public relations codes focus on service to the client or organization (Yang, Taylor & Saffer,

2016). The interests of both these groups are possibly divergent. This causes tension when journalists and PR practitioners work together (L’Etang, 2008). When a journalist relies on ready-made press releases from organizations it is likely that the news will be serving the organization from which the news fact came, in line with PR’s wishes. Such an article may be published at the expense of public service, since it raises questions on how a journalist can remain a watchdog ‘doing it for the public’ (Deuze, 2005, p. 449) while publishing utterances in service of organizations.

Churnalim is not only a development feared by journalists and journalism scholars. On the contrary: PR practitioners worry about the consequences of churnalism as well. They believe news outlets should be credible and deserve public trust, which becomes eroded by churnalism (Jackson and Moloney, 2015).

Nevertheless, not all PR practitioners act as would be expected with regard to these normative evaluations. Untruthful publicity stunts are developed and executed (Schreuder,

2014; Schapendonk, 2013), eminently profiting from non-checking journalists. The competitive environment PR practitioners work in blurs their priorities and leads to them

9 favouring their duty to the client over the duty of society, argue Jackson and Moloney (2015, p. 14).

In case these untruthful publicity stunts are shared and even published in the news media, it becomes extremely clear why the professional codes of journalism and PR clash.

While the untruthful publicity stunt becomes an effective tool for organizational publicity for the PR practitioner (Yang, Taylor & Saffer, 2016), journalistic values are damaged. When untruthful news is insufficiently checked and therefore published, not only the autonomy and quality of journalism are harmed (Davies, 2008) but its informative function and credibility as well (Yang, Taylor & Saffer, 2016; Jackson & Moloney, 2015; Deuze, 2005).

News factor theory

This context gives an impression of how publicity stunts, truthful and untruthful, can reach the news cycle. In order to explore this so far untheorized domain and analyse publicity stunts in the news, a theoretical fundament is requirement. News factor theory forms a suitable perspective, since it involves a substantial, interdisciplinary view to the news selection process, where individual perspectives, professional and organizational routines, cultural influences and more recently also the public’s perception are combined in an integrative approach (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013). The core proposition of news factor theory is that events and matters contain certain properties, or news factors, that determine its news value, or newsworthiness (Eilders, 2006; Schafraad & Kroon, 2013).

The idea of certain elements leading to news selection, was first introduced by

Lippmann (1922). Later on, many researchers contributed to the concept and elaborated the theory on different components. Galtung and Ruge, for example, differentiated between twelve news factors and studied their interdependence (1965); this list of news factors still serves as a starting point for many empirical studies on news factory theory. Rosengren

10

(1970) introduced an analysis of external data of the event to explain news selection, while

Schulz (1976) introduced the idea that news factors determine , and that these news values reflect journalist’s expectations of newsworthiness. Furthermore, Schulz made a large contribution developing interval scales to measure the intensity of news factors (1976).

News factors are newsworthy if the selection criteria of the journalist are met

(Kepplinger & Ehmig, 2006, pp. 26-27; Staab, 1990). This means that news factors do not only serve as characteristics of the event, but as indirect information on what a certain journalist finds newsworthy. For this reason, the values of news factors are said to differ for different media according to the identity of the news organizations and the journalists employed there. However, Kepplinger and Ehmig did not actually find support for their hypothesis that predictions of these values for different types of newspapers are more precise than predictions based on general news values of news factors (2006, p. 37). In other words, news media do accord in their conceptions of newsworthy news factors in practice.

Using news factor theory to find explanations for news publication, implies it is usually employed as a causal theory. News factor theory can indeed explain why certain news releases are followed up in the news media, and why others aren’t. The findings that the range of studies on this matter has brought so far, now make it possible to make predictions on this.

For example, research has shown that a high intensity of news factors increases the chance of publication, and decreases the chance of editorial adjustments at the same time (Kroon &

Schafraad, 2013). When applying this to truthful and untruthful publicity stunts, this finding leads to the following hypothesis:

H1: “Untruthful publicity stunts have a higher news factor intensity than

truthful publicity stunts.”

11

Presumably, PR practitioners launching untruthful stunts would strive to prevent the truth from appearing before the event actually hits the news, so the event is communicated to the publics in its original form and no efforts are squandered. Therefore, a high news factor intensity could be a specially favourable strategy for untruthful publicity stunts.

Studies have shown that press releases from commercial organizations are usually picked up less easily by the news media than those from non-commercial organizations, including both governmental and non-governmental organizations (Seletzky & Lehman-

Wilzig, 2010, p. 257; Liu, Horsley & Levenshus, 2010). Since it has been previously discovered that a higher news factor intensity leads to higher publication success (Schafraad

& Kroon, 2013; Kepplinger & Ehmig, 2006), the news factor intensity could serve as one possible explanation for the relatively high publication success of non-commercial organizations over commercial organizations. This leads to the next hypothesis:

H2: “Stunts from non-commercial organizations (including both governmental

organizations and NGOs) have a higher news factor intensity than stunts from

commercial organizations.”

The last area of research within the scope of this study specifically addresses the untrue information aspects incorporated in stunts. When formulating these research questions, it is expected that according to some organizations and PR agencies, certain circumstances justify for communicating untruths. Such situations may represent situations in which ethical boundaries are less strict than usual. The research questions based on this rationale are:

RQ1: “To what extent does the number of untrue information aspects correlate

positively with the value of the news factor ‘reach’?”

12

RQ2: “To what extent does the number of untrue information aspects in publications

differ between non-commercial organizations (governmental and non-governmental

organizations) and commercial organizations?”

RQ1 explores whether organizations may be willing to increase the number of untrue information aspects incorporated in the stunt’s communication if the issue they want to address has an impact on a larger number of people within society. Related to this presumption, RQ2 explores whether organizations’ societal focus in general can justify for incorporating more untrue information in stunts to reach the publics. If this is the case, it is possible that non-commercial organizations with their society-focus nature, display this decision more often than commercial organizations, whose primary aim is to make a profit for the organization itself (RQ2).

Altogether these hypotheses and research questions are formulated to offer an answer to the central question as posed in the introduction of this research paper: to what extent can truthful and untruthful publicity stunts be characterised in terms of news factor theory?

Methodology

In order to offer an answer to the central question through the hypotheses and research questions, a quantitative content analysis has been carried out. This chapter will provide more insight in the research units, research design and coded variables.

Research units

For this study two paired levels of research units are analyzed. First, publicity stunts are analyzed, including two categories: truthful and untruthful stunts. The stunts were gathered through stratified sampling (Bryman, 2012, pp. 192-193). In stratified sampling, the

13 population is stratified by a criterion after which the sample can be selected (Bryman, 2012, p.

192). For this study it implies that the through stratified sampling, the sample size of both untruthful and truthful stunts can be ensured. The analysis of these two categories of stunts is followed by an analysis of online and offline media publications covering all stunts in the sample, representing a second level of analysis.

The sample of untruthful stunts regards a convenience sample (Bryman, 2012, pp.

201-202), gathered by a search (search term: ‘stunt’) on the websites from the professional

Dutch communication and marketing platform, Adfo Groep. Stunts mentioned in articles here are included in the sample of untruthful stunts if these seem to match the criteria, being: the publicity stunt must meet the definition as formulated in the theoretical framework of this paper; the publicity stunt should have found place in the Netherlands or organized by a Dutch agency or organization; it should be indicated that untrue and/or hidden information played a role with this stunt in the news process. This last criterion is the stratifying criterion.

The sample of truthful stunts was gathered by stunt examples from the websites of several large Dutch PR, communication and marketing agencies, such as PR Stunt, Coopr and

Pride PR. By taking examples from diverse agencies, the sample became more diverse and representative for its kind. Additionally, the websites of Adfo Group served as a resource for this category of stunts as well. The selection criteria are close to that of the other category, being: the publicity stunt must meet the definition as formulated in the theoretical framework of this paper; the publicity stunt should have found place in the Netherlands or at least organized by a Dutch agency or organization; over a range of media publications there is no indication that untrue and/or hidden information played a role with this stunt in the news process. This last criterion distinguishes truthful stunts from the other category of untruthful stunts, being the stratifying criterion for this second category.

14

After the sample of stunts was selected, it was possible to gather the media publications about these stunts for the second level of analysis. In order to reach a workable sample size within the limits of this study’s time frame, it was aimed to select three publications for each stunt. Per stunt a targeted search was carried out on LexisNexis

Academic on the entire year the stunt took place, including all online, offline, national and regional Dutch news sources. The search terms were characteristic for the stunt and for most stunts a number of formulations were submitted. From these results, publications were selected that addressed the stunt in a relevant way: the stunt should be the most prominent topic of the article. In addition, the publications on untruthful stunts should show – at that point still – lacking knowledge of its untruthfulness, so the media coverage can be studied on the stunt’s original form.

If the search in LexisNexis Academic did not suffice in reaching a satisfying number of publications for a stunt, an additional search with relevant search terms was carried out on the online search engine Google. Publications derived from a Google search included online articles of Dutch or Belgium news media; blogposts from professional , blogs for a specific target group or blogs concerning a specific interest; and finally articles from online . This publication sample excluded contributions from the ‘general public’, such as discussions on fora and comments in comment sections. All publications retrieved through

Google search were preferably selected from the first page of search results, and never on a results page higher than the third.

Lastly, for the untruthful stunts extra media publications were gathered to learn more about the truth. These were not each coded separately, but provided information to code the stunt’s actual characteristics through the variables as discussed in the upcoming paragraph

‘general stunt variables’. By taking several publications per stunt, information could be derived on more stunt aspects. Since these background publications address what the stunt

15 was really about - contrary to the publications from the initial media coverage - these enable a comparison between truth and untruth of the sample of untruthful stunts.

Characteristics of research units

Initially the sample of stunts included 68 stunts in two equal categories. After the media publications were sampled however, it appeared that for some stunts sufficient relevant publications lacked at the moment of collecting the sample. Eventually, the sample of stunts therefore has a size of N = 61, including untruthful (N = 29) and truthful (N = 32) stunts. The untruthful stunts range over the period 2005 until 2015, while the truthful stunts range over the period 2006 until 2016. The relevant media publications to be coded regards a total size of

N = 150; excluding the background articles of untruthful stunts.

Research design

The codebook for this quantitative content analysis is divided into two sections that correspond, and added to this paper as Appendix 1. Separating the codebook in two sections enables making a clear distinction between the stunt itself and what has been written about it, and facilitates comparisons between these types of information. Therefore the first codebook section regards factual stunt characteristics for each stunt. The second section of the codebook includes items to be coded for each media publication. It consists of three chapters: general information publication, news information from the inverted pyramid, and news factors. The following paragraph will elaborate on these codebook chapters.

After the complete coding procedure was finished, a randomly selected part of media publications ( N = 15) from the sample was coded once again to measure the intra-coder reliability of codebook items, represented in Krippendorff’s Alpha (Freelon, 2010). These values can be found in the following paragraph on research variables.

16

Variables

The codebook of this study covers a range of variables, as outlined hereafter. For more detailed information on all variables and the operationalization, Appendix 1 can be consulted.

General stunt variables

The first section of the codebook includes several variables to characterize the stunt, both general and more detailed variables. The first variables are case number, date of coding, year of coverage, month of first coverage and name of the organization behind the stunt. The next, categorical, variable type of organization can be answered with a commercial organization, a

(semi-)governmental organization or non-governmental organization (NGO).

Hereafter the aspects of the inverted pyramid (Asbreuk & Moor, 2013; Pöttker, 2003) are coded as open variables, to expose general factual information about the stunts. The inverted pyramid represents a journalistic standard to systematically enhance understanding of editorial products (Pöttker, 2003). These aspects cover essential information of a news event, and have therefore been turned into variables for purposes of this study; the primary who, what, where, when, why and how of each stunt are coded. Why has been operationalized as a categorical variable since its answers are easily generalized. Possible answers are: publicity for one’s own organization as a whole, publicity for an organization’s own product or service, publicity for an issue of importance to the organization and/or its publics, publicity used to pressure another organization, and other reasons.

Media publication variables

The second codebook section, on media publications, starts off with some general characteristics. Three of these are open questions: publication number on this stunt, word count and publication date. The categorical variable type of publication allows four options:

17

(news) article online, (news) article offline, opinionated article, or blogpost. The categorical variable medium or source enables 18 media sources and the option ‘other’. The dichotomous dummy variable expressed doubt records whether any doubt regarding the truth of stunt is expressed in the publication (1=yes).

This chapter is followed the by variables on factual information presented in the publication, which correspond with the components from the inverted pyramid (Asbreuk &

Moor, 2013; Pöttker, 2003). For each of the 6 components, two questions are asked: is the aspect mentioned in the publication, and if so, does it correspond with the actual details of the stunt as previously coded? Both questions are recorded as a dichotomous dummy variable for each component. After coding this, two scales are derived by coding the information into a new variable in IBM SPSS: the degree of publication’s transparency and the degree of publication’s truthfulness, both ranging from 0 (completely non-transparent/untruthful) to 6

(completely transparent/truthful). The difference between these two variables represents a third added variable: number of untrue information aspects.

The last section of the codebook focuses on news factor theory, following the operationalization from Schafraad and Spitteler (2014). The most validated news factors in journalistic selection processes (Eilders, 2006) are each measured on a five-point Likert scale from 0 (absence) to 4 (highest presence possible). The applied operationalization of Schafraad and Spitteler (2014) is in Dutch; the English translations used in this research report derived from Eilders (2006, p. 8).

The news factors measured are: reach with a Kα = .68 (Schafraad & Spitteler, 2014;

Maier & Strömbäck, 2006); controversy with Kα = 1 (Schafraad & Spitteler, 2014; Maier &

Strömbäck, 2006); dynamics with Kα = .92 (Schafraad & Spitteler, 2014; Eilders, 1997);

18 influence with Kα = .491 (Schafraad & Spitteler, 2014; Maier & Strömbäck, 2006); prominence with Kα = .87 (Schafraad & Spitteler, 2014; Maier & Strömbäck, 2006); and unexpectedness with Kα = 1 (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013; Eilders, 2006). Following the example of Schafraad & Kroon (2013), a news factor intensity variable is derived from these news factor variables, reflecting the average news factor value of the publication on a scale of

0 (lowest) to 4 (highest). For details on these news factors, Appendix 1 can be consulted.

Results

This section discusses some general findings from the data that give an impression of the concept of publicity stunts, and elaborates on the results derived from testing the earlier formulated hypotheses and research questions.

Stunt descriptives

For this study, eventually a sample of 150 media publications has been assessed, of which 63 publications on untruthful stunts (N = 29), and 87 publications on truthful (N = 32) stunts.

The frequency of publicity stunts within the sample seems generally increasing yearly; especially for the truthful stunts, a growth of organized stunts is shown in Figure 1 (except the year 2012). For the untruthful stunts a less strong but similar development is visible, with an additional peak in 2011 and 2013 when respectively 20.7% and 27.6% stunts from the sample of untruthful stunts were organized. Most stunts were communicated for the first time at the start and end of summer, namely June (14.8%) and September (14.8%); fewest were launched in January (3.3%) and July (3.3%).

Figure 1: Frequencies of publicity stunts over years (Sampling: April 2016)

1 Insufficient value of Krippendorff’s α. Since this is due to differing values for just one publication, it has been decided to still include the variable in the intensity-scale, but not to use it independently in analyses.

19

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Untruthful Truthful

Stunts within this sample are primarily organized by commercial organizations (78.7%), followed by governmental and semi-governmental organizations (11.5%) and finally by non- governmental organizations or NGOs (9.8%).

From the sample of untruthful stunts, 37.9% regarded the announcement of an event that eventually never took place. For the other untruthful stunts, the untruthfulness was found in other information aspects from the inverted pyramid (Asbreuk & Moor, 2013; Pöttker,

2003), for example the organization behind the publicity stunt (who) or the way of execution

(how). Which aspects were precisely untruthful differed per stunt and publication.

Publication descriptives

When looking at online-offline differences, it appears both truthful and untruthful stunts are more often covered online than offline. This difference becomes even stronger when adding blogs to the category of online news media. ‘Online’ appears to be the most prevalent platform for both categories of publicity stunts – certainly for truthful, where the difference is the largest. The distribution of publication on different platforms is illustrated in figure 2.

Figure 2: Types of media publications covering the publicity stunts

20

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Online news media Offline news media Blogs Other

Untruthful stunts Truthful stunts

Both categories of stunts were most often covered in regional media, followed by professional magazines for truthful stunts and blogs for untruthful stunts.

Of Dutch national media, Algemeen Dagblad is the medium that reports on both stunts most often: 8 out of 63 (12.7%) publications on untruthful stunts were published by this medium, and 9 out of 87 (10.3%) for truthful stunts. Notable is the fact that the NRC relatively often reports on untruthful stunts, covering 5 out of 63 (7.9%) of the sample’s publications on untruthful stunts whether this is only 1 out of 87 (1.1%) for truthful stunts.

An untruthful stunt being covered in the media does not imply that it is actually trusted by the journalist. In some cases publications display doubt, for example by referring to similar cases that turned out hoaxes or explicitly questioning the chance of the news fact being a joke for April fools’ day. For 39% of untruthful stunts, their truthfulness was doubted in one or more publications. For truthful stunts there was 0.0% doubt expressed in the media publications.

Outcomes hypotheses

In order to test the first hypothesis, a scale of news factor intensity was derived from the news factor values. Per media publication, the mean of all news factor values was calculated and made into a new variable. Consequently an independent T-test was conducted, so the variation

21 in news factor intensity between coverage on truthful and truthful stunts could be tested. The test showed that there was a significant difference in news factor intensity between truthful stunts (M = 1.30, SD = .47) and untruthful stunts ( M = 1.54, SD = .51), t(148) = 3.04, p =

.003, 95% CI [.09, .40]. It represented a medium-sized effect of d = .50. These results imply that, in line with the hypothesis, the news factor intensity for untruthful publicity stunts is significantly higher than the news factor intensity of truthful publicity stunts. Hypothesis 1 is therefore confirmed.

Hypothesis 2 tests difference in news factor intensity between commercial and non- commercial organizations, the latter including both governmental organizations and NGOs.

Although these groups are not distributed equally in the sample, the minimum size for carrying out an independent t-test is met for both groups. Levene’s test for Equality of

Variances indicates that equal variances are not assumed. The results of the t-test show that there is a significant difference in news factor intensity between non-commercial ( M = 1.70,

SD = .66) and commercial ( M = 1.31, SD = .41) organizations, t(40.62) = -3.24, p = .002,

95% CI [-.62, -.15], representing a medium to large-sized effect of d =.71. These results imply that stunts from non-commercial organizations display a significantly higher news factor intensity than stunts from commercial organizations; hypothesis 2 is therefore confirmed.

In order to explore research question 1, the correlation is measured between two interval variables: the number of untrue information aspects – as derived from the inverted pyramid variables – and the news factor reach. It turns out there is no significant association between the number of untrue news information aspects and the news factor reach, r = .13, p

= 122.This implies that the number of untrue information aspects incorporated in a publicity stunt does not significantly increase with the publications’ news factor value reach.

Research question 2 addresses differences in the number of untrue information aspects between commercial and non-commercial organizations, the latter including both

22 governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although both groups are not distributed equally, the minimum size for both is met. An independent t-test is carried out on the untrue information aspects, with the types of organization as a grouping variable. The test shows that the average number of untrue information aspects in a publication on publicity stunts of non-commercial organizations ( M = 1.50, SD = 2.03) does not significantly differ from those of commercial organizations ( M = 1.00, SD = 1.58), t(148)= -1.31, 95% CI [-1.21, .22], despite representing a small- to medium-sized effect of d =

.27. Since there is no statistically significant difference between the number of displayed untrue information aspects between commercial and non-commercial organizations.

Conclusion & discussion

In this research news factor theory was applied to the concept of publicity stunts in order to study this so far untheorized subject. By means of a quantitative content analysis, news factor theory provided insight into these stunts to characterize both truthful and untruthful variants.

The findings contribute to the large body of research on news factor theory, its role in the news selection process, and can thereby contribute to theory on churnalism as well.

Results of this study show that the news factor intensity for untruthful publicity stunts is significantly higher than the news factor intensity for truthful publicity stunts. Since a high news factor intensity increases the chance of publication and simultaneously decreases editorial adjustments made by the journalist (Kroon & Schafraad, 2013), it illustrates how untruthful news events – with high news factor intensity - can become subject of news, despite their mendaciousness. Therefore this finding provides more insight in the news selection process, and it illustrates in particular how churnalism functions (Davies, 2008) in case of ready-made news events that are actually untruthful.

23

This research also shows that the news factor intensity for publications on non- commercial organizations is higher than that of commercial organizations. Considering that a higher news factor intensity leads to higher publication success (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013;

Kepplinger & Ehmig, 2006), news factor theory can serve as a possible explanation for the fact that non-commercial organizations are more often covered in the news than commercial organizations (Seletzky & Lehman-Wilzig, 2010, p. 257; Liu, Horsley & Levenshus, 2010).

Obviously, this does not exclude alternative explanations. It does however pose an interesting view on non-commercial organizations’ press relations, since high news factor intensity offers an opportunity for these organizations to reach people in society despite their restricted budgets.

The two research questions exploring certain circumstances that could explain for an increase of incorporated untrue information aspects, did not lead to any concrete insights into possible contexts that could explain for communicating more untruths in publicity stunts.

The outcomes of research question 1 show that there is no signification correlation between the number of untrue information aspects according to elements of the inverted pyramid (Asbreuk & Moor, 2013; Pöttker, 2003), and the stunt’s public reach. Publicity stunts announced as relevant to a larger number of people did not induce a higher use of untruths incorporated in its communication. Perhaps these outcomes would have been different if not the communicated but the actual reach of the stunt, or at least its topic, were measured.

Research question 2 shows that there is no significant difference in the number of untrue information aspects employed between commercial and non-commercial organizations.

Therefore, one could conclude that general organizational aims do not contribute to the decision to incorporate untrue information aspects in PR practices.

One can conclude from these outcomes that societal aims – either a particular focus on people for a stunt’s topic, or in general because of the organizational nature – do not

24 particularly seem to explain for the incorporation of a higher number of untrue information aspects in PR practices.

Some general exploratory findings from this study provide more insight into the concept of publicity stunts as well. Particularly interesting is the fact that around a third of untruthful stunts was covered in media publications that expressed doubt with regard to their truth, while this was the case for none of the truthful stunts. This indicates that to some extent, untruthful news events can be and actually are recognized by professionals in journalism.

Maybe some stunts are really ‘too good to be true’, but perhaps the differences in news factor intensity may trigger caution on the journalist’s side. This would imply that Schafraad en

Kroon’s finding that a high news factor intensity decreases editorial effort (2013) could know some systematic exceptions.

Conclusions can be drawn when considering the results in light of the central question:

“To what extent can truthful and untruthful publicity stunts be characterised in terms of news factor theory?” It is primarily shown that in the distinction of publicity stunts – by their truthfulness or the type of organization responsible – news factor theory can offer valuable contributions in characterizing stunts per category through values of news factor intensity.

Since news factors serve as the properties of a news event (Eilders, 2006; Schafraad & Kroon,

2013), it is interesting that there are differences between certain categories in practice.

This study offers some interesting findings with regard to future research into news factor theory and churnalism. When discussing the findings from this study, it should however be kept in mind that it had its limitations, primarily due to a limited timeframe. For example, future research could benefit from a more systematic way to analyse the aspects of untruthfulness. Although the inverted pyramid (Asbreuk & Moor, 2013; Pöttker, 2003) served as a proper base to distinguish several informative elements of a news event in the first place, it was hard to systematize coding since each stunt differs in design. For example, while for

25 some stunts the how did not contribute considerably to already known elements, for others it actually provided essential information on the stunt’s character. Since the detailed answers to these variables were not directly used, but only the derivative truthful aspects, this was not directly essential for this study. Still, it is a limitation to be aware of, when interpreting the results derived from the untrue information aspects.

This study was also limited by the availability of cases to analyse; certainly the availability of untruthful stunts was restricted. Awareness of the downsides of convenience sampling, such as decreased generalizability (Bryman, 2012), is therefore of importance. A broader timeframe would have enabled the researcher to develop an internationally suitable codebook to increase the number of available cases. This would have enabled sampling randomization to increase the validity of results. However, in an international design it would have been very complicated to take cultural differences into account. This is the primary reason that, certainly at this stage of theorizing stunts, a national sample was preferred.

The limited availability of cases also affected the availability of publications. In order to gather a sufficient sample size, online sources were added to the sample of media publications too. Since it cannot be guaranteed that all authors are experienced or schooled journalists, this relatively small part of the sample (Figure 1) does influence validity.

The yearly increasing number of organized publicity stunts once again illustrates the importance of the publicity stunt’s conceptualization. Opportunities for future research would perhaps lie in a measurement of the actual news factor values of stunts, so these can be compared to the news factor values as covered in the media. This way one could analyse whether the news factor value of ready-made news events is increased by journalists to make it a publishable newsworthy story, or whether editorial adjustments restrict sensation that could be employed by organizations in favour of their publicity. This would be a new way to

26 incorporate news factor theory in research on the news selection process, and could provide many new insights in both bodies of research.

Another theoretical question that remains unanswered after the current research, is whether there are any reasons that could explain for an increased use of untruths in PR practices. A qualitative research design, for example by interviewing stunts’ organizers, could provide more insight in organizers’ motivations. Such a study could enrichen theory on churnalism and thereby support journalists in making decisions when selecting news.

Finally, applying the outcomes to practice, it is indicated that awareness of untruthful ready-made news is an important characteristic for journalists. The results of this study do not only show that there is a significant difference between truthful and untruthful stunts in terms of news factor intensity, but also that - despite publication success - doubt of untruthful stunts is not uncommon while truthful stunts are hardly ever doubted in media publications. This means that journalists are actually capable of spotting the difference between truth and untruth to some extent. Journalists may therefore stand a chance in purifying the news cycle as long as they are aware of their responsibility, and maintain a critical attitude towards sources. This critical attitude is actually particularly important for ready-made news that seems to meet all the journalist’s criteria in terms of newsworthiness, since untruthful stunts have higher news factor intensity: a characteristic that has shown to tempt journalists to make less editorial investments (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013).

The number of untruths still appearing in the media implies that for some PR- practitioners, criticism on churnalism (Davies, 2008; Jackson and Moloney, 2015) is not a sufficient motivation to be careful with the news they deliver. Perhaps an increased critical attitude of journalists can lead to more PR professionals being aware of the recognisability of untruths, which could eventually withhold them from making the effort in the first place.

27

References

Anthill (n.d.). PR stunts. Retrieved from http://www.anthill.nl/pr-bureau/pr-stunts/

Asbreuk, H., & Moor, A. de (2013). Basisboek Journalistiek Schrijven. Groningen/Houten,

the Netherlands: Noordhoff.

Borgdorff, S. (2013, May 24). Unox deelt erwtensoep uit op herfstige meidag. Algemeen

Dagblad. Retrieved from http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/unox-deelt-erwtensoep-uit-op-

herfstige-meidag~a97b55f7/

Broersma, M. (2007). Form, style and Journalistic Strategies. An introduction. In:

M. Broersma (Ed.), Form and style in journalism. European Newspapers and the

representation of news 1880-2005 (pp. 9-24). Leuven/Parijs/Dudley: Peeters.

Broersma, M. (2010). The unbearable limitations of journalism: on press critique and

journalism’s claim to truth. International Communication Gazette, 72(1), 21-33.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods: 4th edition. Oxford, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate Communication. A guide to theory and practice. London,

England: Sage.

Cornelissen, J. P., Carroll, C., & Elving, W. J. L. (2009). Making sense of a crucial interface:

corporate communication and the news media. In C. Chouliaraki & M. Morsing

(Eds.), Media, organisation and identity (pp. 1-22). Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.

Davies, N. (2008). Flat Earth News. London, : Chatto & Windus.

DeLorme, D., & Fedler, F. (2003). Journalists’ hostility toward public relations: An historical

analysis. Public Relations Review, 29(2), 99–124.

Deuze, M. (2005). What is Journalism? Professional Identity and Ideology of

Journalists Reconsidered, Journalism Theory Practice and Criticism, 6(4),

443–65.

28

Deuze, M., (2008). Understanding Journalism as Newswork: How it changes, and how it

remains the same. Westminster Papers in Communication and (WPCC) 5, 4–

23.

Eilders, C. (1997). Nachrichtenfacktoren und rezeption. Eine empirische analyse zur auswahl

und verarbeitung politischer information. Oplagen: Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH.

Eilders, C. (2006). News factors and news decisions. Theoretical and methodological

advances in Germany. Communications, 31(1), 5-24.

Freelon, D. (2010). ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service. International

Journal of Science, 5(1), 20-33.

Galtung, J., & Ruge, M.H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace

Research, 2(1), 64-91.

Harbers, F. (2015). De revanche van de subjectieve ervaring. In J. Bardoel & H. Wijfjes

(Eds.), Journalistieke cultuur in Nederland (pp. 123-141). Amsterdam, the

Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

Jackson, D., & Moloney, K. (2015). Inside churnalism: PR, journalism and power

relationships in flux. Journalism Studies, 16, 1-18.

Kepplinger, H.M., & Ehmig, S.M. (2006). Predicting news decisions. An empirical test of

the two-component theory of news selection. Communications, 31(1), 25-43.

Kok, R. (2013, April 2). Sommatie Caesar Salad van de kaart is 1 aprilgrap. Retrieved from

http://www.missethoreca.nl/horeca/nieuws/2013/4/sommatie-caesar-salad-van-de-

kaart-is-1-aprilgrap-10150354.

Kopenhaver, L. (1985). Aligning values of practitioners and journalists. Public Relations

Review, 11(2), 34–42.

L’Etang, J. (1999). Public relations education in Britain: An historical review in the context of

professionalisation. Public Relations Review, 25(3), 261-289.

29

Lewis, J., Williams, A., & Franklin, B. (2008). Four rumours and an explanation. A political

economic account of journalists’ changing newsgathering and reporting practices.

Journalism Practice, 2(1), 27–45.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Liu, B.F., Horsley, S., & Levenshus, A.B. (2010). Government and corporate communication

practices: Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research,

38(2), 189-213.

Luyendijk, J. (2006). Het zijn net mensen. Beelden uit het Midden-Oosten. Amsterdam:

Podium.

Maier, M. & Strömbäck, J. (2006). Code book: Content analysis threat on the agenda.

Codebook based on Maier, M. & Ruhrmann, G. (2008). Celebrities in Action and

Other News News Factors of German TV news 1992 - 2004 Results from a Content

Analysis. Human Communication, 11(1), 197-214.

Mulder, J. (2015, November 10). 20 onvergetelijke PR-stunts van eigen bodem. Retrieved

from http://www.communicatieonline.nl/artikel/20-onvergetelijke-pr-stunts-van-eigen-

bodem

Neijens, P., & Smit, E. (2006). Dutch public relations practitioners and journalists:

Antagonists no more. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 232-240.

Pöttker, H. (2003). News and its communicative quality: The inverted pyramid – why and

when did it appear? Journalism Studies, 4(4), 501-511.

PR stunt (n.d.). PR-stunts. Retrieved from http://www.prstunt.nl/pr-stunts/

Rosengren, K. E. (1970). International news: Intra and extra media data. Acta Socio-

logica, 13, 96-109.

Ryan, M. (2001). Journalistic Ethics, Objectivity, Existential Journalism, Standpoint

Epistemology, and Public Journalism. Journal of Ethics 16(1), 3–22.

30

Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. (1988) Journalists and public relations practitioners: Why the

antagonism? Journalism Quarterly, 65(1), 131–140.

Sallot, L., & Johnson, E. (2006). Investigating relationships between journalists and public

relations practitioners: Work together to set, frame and build the public agenda, 1991–

2004. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 151–159.

Schafraad, P., & Kroon, A. (2013). Copy-paste of journalistieke verdieping? Tijdschrift voor

Communicatiewetenschap, 41(3), 283-303.

Schafraad, P. & Spitteler, R. (2014). Dit wordt het nieuws: Eindreportage project De

Nieuwswaarde van Corporate PR. Retrieved from Stimuleringsfonds voor de

Journalistiek website: https://www.svdj.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/

Eindrapportage-Dit-Wordt-Het-Nieuws-1.pdf

Schapendonk, N. (2013, August 29). Bejaarden in Koepel: ‘Het is grote onzin’. BN/De Stem,

p. 1.

Schreuder, A. (2014, June 19). Ook burgemeester zat in complot van homo-actie. NRC

Handelsblad, p. 3.

Schulz, W. (1976). Die Konstruktion von Realität in den Nachrichtenmedien: Analyse

der aktuellen Berichterstattung. Freiburg, Germany: Alber.

Seletzky, M., & Lehman-Wilzig, S. (2010). Factors underlying organizations' successful press

release publication in newspapers: Additional PR elements for the evolving “press

agentry” and “public information” models. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 4(4), 244-266.

Singh, R., & Smyth, R. (2000). Australian public relations: Status at the turn of the 21st

century. Public Relations Review, 26(4), 387-401.

Spicer, C.H. (1993). Images of Public Relations in the Print Media. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 5(1), 47-61.

31

Staab, J. F. (1990). The role of news factors in news selection: A theoretical reconsideration.

European Journal of Communication, 5(4), 423-443.

Theofilou, A., & Watson, T. (2014). The history of public relations in Greece from 1950 to

1980: Professionalization of the “art”. Public Relations Review, 40(4), 700-706.

Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Public relations: An emerging social science enters the

New Millennium. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 319–342).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Witschge, T., & Nygren, G. (2009). Journalistic work: A profession under pressure? Journal

of Media Business Studies, 6(1), 37-59.

Zandberg, E. (2016, February 3). Al 250 sollicitanten op vacature Kapitein Iglo. Metro.

Retrieved from http://www.metronieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/2016/02/al-250-

sollicitanten-op-vacature-kapitein-iglo

32

Appendix 1: Codebook & Coding manual

Onderdelen:

1. Deel 1:

General stunt variables

2. Deel 2:

a. Algemene informatie publicatie

b. Nieuwsinformatie in publicatie

c. Nieuwsfactoren in publicatie

Algemene opmerking:

Als op basis van het sample geen antwoord gegeven kan worden op een vraag, is het in te vullen antwoord 99999; dit geldt voor alle onderdelen.

Part 1: General stunt variables

Dit gedeelte adresseert de algemene informatie op basis van waarheid; bij truthful stunts

(casenummer start met 2) wordt aangenomen dat de gecommuniceerde informatie uit de mediapublicaties juist is, bij untruthful stunts (casenummer start met 1) gaat het om de daadwerkelijke informatie.

Deze informatie van untruthful stunts kan ontleend worden aan het aanvullende sample voor achtergrondinformatie, waarin publicaties zijn opgenomen die de waarheid benoemen.

Zoals aangegeven in het hoofdstuk ‘research design’, worden deze publicaties niet per stuk gecodeerd maar bieden zij gezamenlijk de juiste informatie om de vragen te beantwoorden en juist te coderen.

33

1. Wat is het casenummer? Alle cases zijn genummerd. De stunts die initieel zijn geselecteerd op onwaarheid beginnen met 1, de stunts die initieel zijn geselecteerd op waarheid beginnen met 2; vervolgens wordt per categorie vanaf 01 geteld. Te noteren als: 101, 201, etc.

2. Wat is de datum van coderen? Te noteren als 01012016

3. Uit welke maand dateert het eerste bericht in (nieuws)media over deze stunt? Te noteren als 01, 11.

4. Uit welk jaar dateert deze stunt? Te noteren als 2009, 2014.

5. Van welke organisatie/persoon is de stunt of het nieuwsfeit echt afkomstig? De verantwoordelijke organisatie; indien er een extern PR-bureau betrokken is, betreft het de opdrachtgever en niet de uitvoerder.

6. Wat voor organisatie betreft die uit 5? (1) Commercieel: Een bedrijf gericht op het maken van winst. Rechtsvorm is bijvoorbeeld een eenmanszaak of vennootschap. (2) (semi-)overheid: Bestuurlijke, uitvoerende of rechterlijke organisaties die namens de overheid taken uitvoeren, of organisaties die deels steunen op publieke financiering en daardoor in de bedrijfsvoering ook (gedeeltelijk) gestuurd wordt door de overheid. (3) Niet-gouvernementele organisatie (NGO): een niet-commerciële organisatie die onafhankelijk is van de overheid en zich op een of andere manier richt op een verondersteld maatschappelijk of politiek belang. Rechtsvorm is vereniging of stichting.

De volgende vragen gaan over de achtergrond informatie van de stunt, naar waarheid.

Sommige antwoorden blijven ‘onbeantwoord’ als de aangekondigde stunt niet plaatsvindt (8,

9, 10, 12); andere antwoorden kunnen alsnog beantwoord worden, omdat deze informatie bij

34 afwezigheid van de stunt blijft staan (7, 11). De vragen dienen zo bondig en beknopt mogelijk beantwoord te worden; details dienen weggelaten te worden, zeker indien deze aan bod komen bij een van de andere W’s/H.

7. Wat is de echte, primaire ‘wie’ van de publiciteitsstunt? Wie is primair verantwoordelijk voor de stunt? Het gaat hier bij voorkeur om de organisatie of een specifieke werknemer van de organisatie (indien geëxpliciteerd), oftewel de initiator/organisator en niet om het PR-bureau.

8. Wat is de echte, primaire ‘wat’ van de publiciteitsstunt? Betreft de stunt bijvoorbeeld een evenement of project, een grote verandering voor de organisatie en diens producten, of vindt er uiteindelijk ondanks de aankondigingen geen stunt plaats (=niets)? Het gaat echt om de activiteit, niet om een centraal product of aanleiding.

9. Wat is de echte, primaire ‘waar’ van de publiciteitsstunt? Wat is de fysieke of virtuele locatie van de publiciteitsstunt zoals geëxpliciteerd in 8? Of vindt de stunt ondanks de aankondigingen uiteindelijk helemaal niet plaats (=nergens)?

10. Wat is de echte, primaire ‘wanneer’ van de publiciteitsstunt? Op welk moment komt de stunt tot uitvoering? Op een moment, een langere periode, of vindt de stunt ondanks de aankondigingen uiteindelijk helemaal niet plaats (=nooit)? Kan betrekking hebben op moment/datum of duur (een dag, twee weken, voor altijd).

11. Wat is de echte, primaire ‘waarom’ van de publiciteitsstunt? Indien de stunt de organisatie centraal stelt, kies voor 1 of 2; 2 indien er een specifiek(e) product/dienst wordt genoemd, 1 als dit niet het geval is en het de organisatie algemeen adresseert. Indien 3 en 4 gelijktijdig van toepassing zijn (d.w.z. een andere organisatie wordt onder druk gezet t.b.v. een issue), selecteer 4. Indien de rol van externe partij ontbreekt in het aankaarten van de issue, kies 3. Als geen van de genoemde aanleidingen aansluit, selecteer 5. (1) Eigen publiciteit voor de organisatie als geheel (algemeen) (2) Eigen publiciteit voor een onderdeel/product van de organisatie (3) Publiciteit voor een issue dat belangrijk is voor de organisatie (4) Publiciteit om een andere organisatie onder druk te zetten.

35

(5) Overige aanleidingen.

12. Wat is de echte, primaire ‘hoe’ van de publiciteitsstunt? Wat is er bekend van de manier waarop de stunt (zoals aangeduid in de ‘wat’ van vraag 7) tot uitvoering komt? Of vindt de stunt ondanks de aankondigingen uiteindelijk helemaal niet plaats (=niet)?

Part 2: Codebook media publications

2a Algemene informatie publicatie

13. Wat voor publicatie betreft het? Het onderscheid tussen blogs en een online artikel kan vaak gevonden worden in het type medium; indien het medium ook offline uitgeeft, is de juiste optie 1. Artikelen uit zogenaamde ‘online magazines’ worden aangeduid als blog(post) indien het medium niet offline uitgeeft; dit onderscheid tussen magazines vs online /blog wordt tevens in de volgende vraag gehandhaafd. (1) Nieuwsartikel online (nieuwsbericht, achtergrondverhaal, interview, reportage, etc). (2) Nieuwsartikel in printmedia (nieuwsbericht, achtergrondverhaal, interview, reportage, etc). (3) Opiniestuk (columns, recensies, opinieverhaal) (4) Blogpost (opiniërend of informerend)

14. Van welk medium is de publicatie afkomstig? (1) De Telegraaf (online/offline) (2) Algemeen Dagblad (online/offline) (3) De Volkskrant (online/offline) (4) NRC Next/Handelsblad (online/offline) (5) Trouw (online/offline) (6) Financieel Dagblad (online/offline) (7) Metro (online/offline) (8) Het Parool (online/offline)

36

(9) AT5 (online/offline) (10) NU.nl (online) (11) NOS (online/offline) (12) ANP (13) Vakblad of professioneel blog (online/offline) (14) Overige blogs, over interesses etc uit niet-professioneel oogpunt (15) Overige nationale kranten (online/offline) (16) Overige regionale media (online/offline) (17) Overige media, Belgisch (online/offline) (18) Overige bladen/magazines (online/offline) (19) Overig

15. Hoeveelste publicatie is het die gecodeerd wordt over deze stunt? Te noteren als 1, 2, 3. Voor iedere stunt wordt op deze manier vanaf 1 geteld.

16. Hoeveel woorden telt de publicatie (indien schriftelijk)? Te noteren als 35, 340. Incl. kop, lead, intro. Bij artikelen geraadpleegd van LexisNexis het woordaantal te noteren dat boven het artikel wordt aangeduid.

17. Wat is de publicatiedatum? (Indien bekend) Te noteren als 01012011, 12042006

18. Wordt in dit nieuwsbericht twijfel uitgesproken over de waarheid van de stunt? Bijvoorbeeld: “Het is bijna 1 april”, “deze organisatie staat bekend om 1aprilgrappen”, “Of is het een stunt?”, “de woordvoerder benadrukt bij navraag dat het niet om een stunt gaat” en vergelijkbare indicaties dat de auteur het nieuwsfeit niet zonder meer voor waar wil aannemen. (0) Nee (1) Ja

37

3.a Nieuwsinformatie in publicatie

Bij de even-vragen wordt gevraag naar waarheid: als het voorgaande antwoord een ‘nee’ was, kan bij deze vraag 99999 worden ingevuld, omdat hier niet over geoordeeld kan worden en een ‘ja’ of ‘nee’ niet zou voldoen. Het onderscheid tussen ‘niet genoemd’ en ‘niet in overeenstemming met de waarheid’ blijft zo zichtbaar.

19. Wordt de ‘wie’ in deze publicatie geëxpliciteerd? (0) Nee (1) Ja

20. Komt de ‘wie’ in deze publicatie overeen met de ‘wie’ in onderdeel 1, vraag 7? In andere woorden: is de ‘wie’ in deze publicatie waar of onwaar? (0) Nee/onwaar (1) Ja/waar

21. Wort de ‘wat’ in deze publicatie geëxpliciteerd? (0) Nee (1) Ja

22. Komt de ‘wat’ in deze publicatie overeen met de ‘wat’ in onderdeel 1, vraag 8? In andere woorden, is de ‘wat’ in deze publicatie waar of onwaar? (0) Nee/onwaar (1) Ja/waar

23. Wordt de ‘waar’ in deze publicatie geëxpliciteerd? (0) Nee (1) Ja

24. Komt de ‘waar’ in deze publicatie overeen met de ‘waar’ in onderdeel 1, vraag 9? In andere woorden, is de ‘waar’ in deze publicatie waar of onwaar? (0) Nee/onwaar (1) Ja/waar

38

25. Wordt de ‘wanneer’ in deze publicatie geëxpliciteerd? (0) Nee (1) Ja

26. Komt de ‘wanneer’ in deze publicatie overeen met de ‘wanneer’ in onderdeel 1, vraag 10? In andere woorden, is de ‘wanneer’ in deze publicatie waar of onwaar? (0) Nee/onwaar (1) Ja/waar

27. Wordt de ‘waarom’ in de publicatie geëxpliciteerd? (0) Nee (1) Ja

28. Komt de ‘waarom’ in deze publicatie overeen met de ‘waarom’ in onderdeel 1, vraag 11? In andere woorden, is de ‘waarom’ in deze publicatie waar of onwaar? (0) Nee/onwaar (1) Ja/waar

29. Wordt de ‘hoe’ in de publicatie geëxpliciteerd? (0) Nee (1) Ja

30. Komt de ‘hoe’ in deze publicatie overeen met de ‘hoe’ in onderdeel 1, vraag 12? In andere woorden, is de ‘hoe’ in deze publicatie waar of onwaar? (0) Nee/onwaar (1) Ja/waar

4.a Nieuwsfactoren in publicatie

31. Wat is de waarde van de nieuwsfactor ‘reach’ (omvang) bij deze stunt in publicatie?

39

Reach refers to the amount of people directly affected by an event, or being influenced by it; both in a positive and negative way. The event has already happened, or the realistic possibility or risk of it happening has been addressed. ‘General trends’ are not included. (0) Er is volgens de publicatie geen sprake van aanwijsbare, directe gevolgen voor of invloed op menselijke individuen. (1) Er zijn volgens de publicatie gevolgen voor een kleine omvang van relevante mensen; het gaat om kleine groepen zoals families, voorbijgangers of enkele personen binnen een grotere groep. 0 – 100 mensen. (2) Er zijn volgens de publicatie gevolgen voor een beperkte omvang van relevante mensen; grotere groepen van mensen binnen bijvoorbeeld een geïnstitutionaliseerde context. 101-1.000 personen. (3) Er zijn volgens de publicatie gevolgen voor een hoge omvang van relevante mensen; het gaat hier om verschillende groepen in de maatschappij die bijvoorbeeld economisch of persoonlijk worden getroffen. 1.001 – 10.000 personen. (4) Er zijn volgens de publicatie gevolgen voor de hoogst mogelijke omvang van relevante mensen, zoals alle burgers van een natie, meer dan de helft van een bevolking of een religieuze groep. Aankondigingen van politieke, religieuze of militante leiders kunnen ook deze omvang bereiken. Meer dan 10.000 personen.

32. Wat is de waarde van de nieuwsfactor ‘controversy’ (controverse/conflict) bij deze stunt in de publicatie? Controversy refers to the explicit presentation of several opinions, excluding the journalist’s, which are communicated literally or verbally: whether the situation is conflictual. (0) In de publicatie is geen weergave van controversie. (1) In de publicatie wordt weinig controversie weergegeven; als het nieuwsevent ‘omstreden’ is. Er is sprake van één partij, of van twee algemene partijen die niet specifiek aanwijsbaar zijn. (2) In de publicatie wordt een beetje controversie weergeven; er zijn losstaande standpunten die neutraal weergegeven worden, of afspraken worden niet nagekomen. De controverse leidt (nog) niet tot een duidelijke confrontatie.

40

(3) In de publicatie wordt controversie weergegeven; de partijen maken elkaar expliciet verwijten, en de berichtgeving refereert naar twee of meer kanten van het verhaal. De controverse leidt dus tot een duidelijke confrontatie. (4) In de publicatie wordt hoge controversie weergegeven; de intensiteit van het conflict is hoog, er worden grote argumenten gehandhaafd of verwijten gemaakt die de zuiverheid van een menselijke of rechtmatige tegenstander in twijfel trekken. Mogelijk een agressief karakter van de confrontatie; verder gerechtelijke conflicten en stakingen.

33. Wat is de waarde van de nieuwsfactor ‘dynamics’ (dynamiek/continuïteit) bij deze stunt in de publicatie? Dynamics refers to how an event is presented in terms of movement or change. Possibly resulting in maintaining or modifying the status quo, representing potential consequences to society. (0) In de publicatie wordt niet gesproken over verandering van de status quo, maar over een statische toestand. Ook kan het historische informatie betreffen. (1) In de publicatie is er sprake van lichte dynamiek in uitsluitend verbale acties. Het gaat hier om performatieve taalhandelingen; werkwoorden die een verbale actie aangeven (openbaar maken, aankondigen, veroordelen). (2) In de publicatie is er sprake van een redelijk dynamische situatie, of een proces; er is enige verandering. Het gaat om productlanceringen, beslissende uitingen, of een uitgebracht advies met consequenties of vrijblijvend besluit. (3) In de publicatie is er sprake van een dynamische situatie: het gaat om concrete acties, mededelingen, besluiten, staatsbezoeken en wetten. Het gaat om acties van individuen of instellingen die tot verandering leiden. (4) In de publicatie is sprake van zeer dynamische situatie. Het gaat om meerdere opeenvolgende daden of acties van identificeerbare actoren. Verder gaat het om uitzonderlijk grote veranderingen of doorbraken.

34. Wat is de waarde van de nieuwsfactor ‘influence’ (invloed/elitepersonen) bij deze stunt in de publicatie? Influence refers to the social or political powers of explicit, identifiable groups, institutions and individuals, irrespective of their exact role in the news coverage, as long as its active (and not as the source of the press release).

41

(0) In de publicatie worden geen invloedrijke actoren genoemd. Verwijzingen blijven beperkt tot persoonlijke voornaamwoorden of groepen in het algemeen (bijvoorbeeld gecategoriseerd op beroep). (1) In de publicatie worden actoren met een zeer lage invloed genoemd. Het gaat hier bijvoorbeeld om kleine lokale instanties, gewone mensen, werknemers, teams, kunstenaars als individu. (2) In de publicatie worden actoren met lage invloed genomen. Het gaat hier bijvoorbeeld om lokale overheden en politici, regionale instanties, kleine en middelgrote bedrijven, leidinggevenden binnen een bedrijf uit naam van hun functie, academische & professionele experts binnen vakgebied,, vertegenwoordigers van een organisatie onder nationaal niveau. (3) In de publicatie komen actoren vore met hoge invloed. Vakbonden, federale deelstaatregeringen, staatsrechtbanken, Europese regering, nationale partijen en autoriteiten, politie en leger, verenigde universiteiten, massamedia, nationale kerken en sportverenigingen, bekende onderzoeksinstituten (CBS), de overheid als actor, leiders van overkoepelende organisaties of CEO, hoge geestelijkheid, Eerste en Tweede Kamerleden. (4) In de publicatie komen personen voor met de hoogste invloed. Het gaat om internationale pressiegroepen en organisaties, nationale regering en commissies van de overheid, federale overheden, staatshoofden en ministers, regeringsleiders, fractieleiders van regeringspartijen.

35. Wat is de waarde van de nieuwsfactor ‘prominence’ (prominentie) bij deze stunt in de publicatie? Prominence refers to the public notoriety of an explicit, identifiable person, in spite of his or her political or economic power, and irrespective the exact role in news coverage. (0) In de publicatie worden geen individuen bij naam genoemd. (1) In de publicatie worden ´gewone´, onbekende of beperkt gekende individuen genoemd. (2) In de publicatie worden landelijk matige bekende personen genoemd, zoals politici, sporters of acteurs, of mensen die worden aangeduid als professional/expert in het vakgebied. (3) In de publicatie worden prominente personen genoemd.. De functie kan ontbreken omdat de bekendheid van de individu verondersteld wordt. Het gaat

42

om landelijk zeer bekende personen, maar ook internationaal bekende mensen binnen een specifiek domein (sport, entertainment, wetenschap). (4) In de publicatie worden personen van hoge prominentie genoemd; het gaat om internationaal zeer bekende personen die wereldwijd bekend zijn en veel aanzien genieten.

36. Wat is de waarde van de nieuwsfactor ‘unexpectedness’ (verrassing) bij deze stunt in de publicatie? Unexpectedness is when when an event cannot be announced or when expectations are gainsaid (Schafraad & Kroon, 2013; Eilders, 2006). (0) De publicatie vertoont absoluut geen indicatie van verrassing, was vooraf aangekondigd of had vooraf aangekondigd kunnen worden (agendagebeurtenis: bijvoorbeeld een opening). (1) De publicatie vertoont indicatie van weinig verrassing; het nieuwsevent was niet aangekondigd en het publiek had geen voorkennis, maar het lag volgens de berichtgeving in de lijn der verwachting. De eerdere verwachting wordt geschetst in het bericht. (2) De publicatie vertoont indicatie van een beetje verrassing; het gaat hier bijvoorbeeld om de uiteindelijke uitkomsten of nieuwe feiten van reeds aangekondigde of bekende gebeurtenissen of nieuwsevents die niet konden worden aangekondigd. Een beetje verrassing houdt in dat er vooraf geen verwachtingen waren van deze uitkomsten. (3) De publicatie vertoont indicatie dat het nieuwsevent de verwachting tegenspreekt, en daardoor verrassend is. Er is expliciete verbazing over de uitkomsten tegenover de initiële verwachtingen over de uitkomsten; daarin zit een tegenstelling. (4) De publicatie vertoont expliciete indicatie dat het nieuwsevenement de verwachting tegenspreekt, aangekondigd of niet. De gebeurtenis is duidelijk uitzonderlijk, buitengewoon of zeldzaam.

43