Journalism is not PR

Complaints about language are increasingly common sights on social media. The sensitivity around word choices reaches dizzy new heights every day, and there was one particular outcry that pushed me to dust off this old blog and scribe my thoughts. 

Here's a link - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurenpaton_ok-yes-theyve-changed-it-now-but-no-one-activity-7022154355017412608-UVX9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop 

Yesterday I saw dozens of posts that were bursting with incandescence and demanded the BBC change a headline because it was so offensive. The comments inevitably bleated support, condemning the writer, and riling up other onlookers to contact the BBC to instigate an edit. 

For those of you who haven't clicked the link, the headline reads:

'Jacinda Ardern resigns: Can women really have it all?' 

Now, I could use this post to discuss whether these words are hateful and sexist or not, but that's a bit too obvious and that drum has been banged too many times, to too many deaf ears. Instead, I'd like to focus on the notion that principally, journalists ought to be left alone to write as they wish without fear of a mob forcing a change. 

I'm not opposing criticism of journalistic work nor am I opposing public debate on published materials. I am, however, worried about the idea that readers are able to exert such power over the writer as to edit his or her work so that it suits their taste. Incidentally, the writer of this piece was in fact a 'her' but this is something that slipped the mob's otherwise astute radar, and to those who did notice it didn't seem to make a difference - a crime had been committed as far as they were concerned, and the ecstasy of collective condemnation was far too intoxicating to dilute. 

The biggest problem, of course, as with all of these sensitivity cases is that the publisher (in this case the BBC) buckles to the baying of the crowd. The BBC gave in and immediately edited the piece as per the conditions of the faint-hearted yet frenzied plaintiffs. Apologising, appeasing, pandering - these are the usual response tactics and they only serve to exacerbate the problem which puts more power into the hands of the mob.

Does this mean journalists at the BBC will be frightened to express themselves, and instead write as softly as they can, ensuring they don't step on any delicate toes?

Probably. 

So, you see, with one outcry and one surrender, the quality and value of journalism are decreased.  I have argued recently, mostly with myself, that journalism has become PR because the media is so hyper-aware of political correctness and there's so much fear around being 'cancelled', the content they produce is done not to inform or express, but to please the audience, tick sensitivity boxes, and sell themselves as 'good' per the ever-changing standards, like a quivering peasant at the feet of an administrative overlord. 

We need tougher platforms and publishers who won't just give in and more importantly, won't dilute their content in anticipation of an angry mob - this is crying before you've been hit, it's the capitulation of integrity, like a bully's victim who suffers defeat before a blow has even been struck. 

This is one particular example I've highlighted, but I promise you there have been dozens of these cases on a daily basis for at least the last 5 years. There is much more at stake than most people realise - the entire foundation of western civilisation rests precariously on things like this but that's another topic for another blogpost. We've lost a lot of ground to thugs who don't know how to process thought in a reasonable, rational way but wield massive power and influence over what people are allowed to say and write - even enforcing edits and erasures without the speaker, writer or publisher putting up a fight. Journalism is not PR, it must not soothe the insatiable irritation of these people, instead it must inform at all costs, and inflame if it so chooses.