The value of coverage generated through public relations is deemed, according to PR industry standards to be anywhere from two to eight times the value of equivalent advertising space. This is simply a benchmark used to indicate the influence of editorial and no good PR firm would hang their hat on it. But it does serve to illustrate just how influential the media can be.
What happens though, when a story relating to a company, product or person is completely off-message, or in some cases down-right incorrect? The ability to correct misinformation is next to naught and the consumer has in effect been duped.
With the drive to break a story first and the speed of internet distribution how can we prevent misinformation being conveyed to consumers, and who if they read it in the paper, generally believes such material?
Most recently we saw a classic situation where sugar (we declare our interest here as we work for the New Zealand Sugar Company) was deemed, according to the British Journal of Dermatology, to cause wrinkles. A little investigation found that the original item was an opinion piece from someone who referred to the Journal but certainly did not reference this claim to that source. Within days, however, the story had been broadcast around the world and was reported on credible news sites as fact.
Closer to home we are in the midst of smear campaign, largely led by one of our political parties, claiming that aspartame is dangerous (another declaration of interest as we work for The Coca-Cola Company). Such claims are reported as fact although those making such claims do not have the qualifications to make such claims. And it seems their statements are further strengthened by their questioning or contradicting the credibility of some of the world’s leading experts in food safety.
Who would you believe, pre-eminent international experts in the field, or a politician in election year? Unfortunately it often seems that the anti-establishment position attracts the most media attention.
These are the same concerns I expressed during the GE debate, in the New Zealand Journal of Dietetics. I also highlighted at that time, that a far more pressing issue was the fact that more people die each year due to low intakes of fruit and vegetables than on our roads. Some five years later this situation still prevails.
The smear campaign against aspartame is one that potentially is disadvantaging consumers. In the midst of an obesity epidemic, products sweetened with non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame are an integral part of the solution for some people, yet consumers are being falsely told they are not safe.
Robust research published in credible, peer reviewed scientific journals confirm the safety of aspartame and studies show the inclusion of such products in weight management eating plans is beneficial.
What fails to register with many reporters, is that no responsible company would knowingly promote a product or an ingredient that was not proven to be safe. Aspartame is used in beverages, confectionary and food items, all of which are produced and marketed by well respected companies who have shareholders and many different authorities to account to. These companies would not have a sustainable business or indeed a viable customer base were they to be so irresponsible.
The burden of proof for responsible companies is significant, yet the burden of proof for the naysayers and scare-mongerers appears to be very low. The one party that can look to address this imbalance is the media, yet to date it has failed to do so.
One issue could be the fact that, according to the just launched Science Media Centre, New Zealand does not even have one single full-time science reporter. This lack of experience often means that some are too quick to report on newly released studies showing a new finding. No matter who this comes from, how many people (or animals) were involved and where it was originally published, if the results appear controversial enough, they tend to be published.
It leaves consumers wide open to exploitation and to being misled by those who are pursuing other agendas – whether it be to sell papers, solicit votes or make money. In a country where we seek to achieve the big step forward through research development and innovation – much of which will be science based, this is an alarming situation.
Jane Dodd
General Manager
Network PR
|
