Truth and Untruth in in the Battle for Media Coverage Publicity Stunts in Terms of News Factor Theory Zoë Visser 10151931 Master’s thesis Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science Thesis supervisor: dr. J.W. Boumans Friday June 24th 2016 Abstract The professions of PR and journalism have been changing and widely discussed by scholars and professionals in both fields. Increasing workload in journalism demands journalists to accept an increasing number of ready-made source 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 truth of a third of untruthful stunts was doubted by the journalist covering the news event, 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, churnalism, publicity stunts, PR hoaxes, news factor theory. 2 Introduction Over time, the professions of public relations (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, Nick Davies (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 propaganda by sources and threatens the reliability and credibility of the news media (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 communications 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 press release (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 information. Due to the insufficient conceptualization of publicity