What’s particularly notable in this case is the paper’s reaction. Its business editor told Romenesko this week that he felt the false denials damaged the paper:
“I felt like our brand — our newspaper — was damaged” by Schnucks’ denials, which prompted the paper to stay silent about sale rumors, says business editor Roland Klose. Readers, he says, have accused the paper of being “derelict” by not running rumor stories, but “we felt it would be irresponsible …and it was such an adamant denial” from Willis.Bailey doesn’t believe the PR woman was simply out of the loop when she talked to him in late August. After the deal was announced, he says, “she said, ‘We couldn’t tell you, Tom, because we had this agreement” with Kroger.
A source burned the paper, so the paper decided to burn the source by detailing her lies in a follow up report.
The resulting report may seem like nothing more than payback, but it does two important things. First, it helps readers understand why the paper published a story that led with false information. At the same time, it holds the company accountable. Second, the story functions as something of a warning to other would-be dishonest sources: You can’t lie to us and get away with it.
I suspect the paper feels justified in doing this because the transgressor is a professional communicator. She is expected to meet a higher standard, and it’s fair game to hold her to it.
That’s especially true when you consider what Willis told Romenesko. Asked why she told the paper no deal was being negotiated when that’s exactly what was going on, here’s what she said: “I gave them the best information I had at the time.”
Yep, another lie.
Correction of the Week
A profile of the Icelandic billionaire Thor Bjorgolfsson referred to his plan for a super yacht known as Project Mars, as a play on his thunder god name. To clarify: Thor is the hammer-wielding Norse god of thunder. His nearest Roman equivalent is the thunderbolt-wielding Jupiter, rather than Mars, the Roman god of war (“Icelandic tycoon still living the high life in London after the collapse of Icesave”, Business, last week, page 35). — The Observer (U.K.)
Sorry. The Commercial Appeal doesn't get off that easily.
The PR person said, "there is no deal." By her narrow definition, there wasn't one. The deal wasn't final and could conceivably never happen. So she actually wasn't lying, though she was doing her darndest to avoid the obvious truth. The CA bears some responsibility for failing to parse her words carefully and thereby falling into the trap of being misled. The CA should have asked a follow-up question to clarify precisely what she meant.
In any event, the CA shouldn't have buried the story.
#1 Posted by Michael C, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 02:13 PM
No, the PR person wasn't "avoiding the obvious truth."
The truth wasn't at all obvious to the reporters asking the question - which is why they had to ask. The PR person offered a response that applied to a different context than that of the original question asked.
Q: Are the rumors that your company is selling its local stores to Kroger?
A: ...there is no truth to those rumors. There is no deal regarding any sale or purchase with regard to the Schnucks company.
Sure, a good follow-up question would have been "Are there any deals in the works?" but if the PR person was aware of the deal negotiations - they were clearly attempting to mislead.
#2 Posted by murph, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 02:24 PM
There’s a lesson here for reporters. Willis is correct when she says a deal isn’t a deal until it’s signed. Her “There is no truth to those rumors,” while undoubtedly misleading, was also not a lie if it came in response to a question such as “We’re hearing that Schnucks is going to be sold to Kroger – is that true?” Follow-ups could have included questions such as: “Are talks going on?” “Is a deal under discussion?” “Have there been meetings or phone calls between Schnucks and Kroger representatives in the past XXX days?” Willis’s refusal to answer such questions would have made it clear that her “There is no deal” was not, in fact, an unequivocal denial that something was up. It would have been part of the story, which then would have been justified in including the material from other sources. Reporters and editors must pay careful attention to the precise meaning of the words used by sources, especially when the sources are experienced public relations people. Repeated, nuanced follow-ups can be tough to formulate during a cranky interview, but this is part of the craft.
#3 Posted by Paul Knox, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 02:44 PM
I'm also surprised the reporter didn't ask "Is there any deal in the works?" I would have.
#4 Posted by jt, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 02:44 PM
Michael C says I shouldn't let the Appeal off this easy, but I think some folks are letting the PR person off too easy. She could have simply not responded. Instead, she actively said things to shoot down the rumors. Things that weren't true.
It's not accurate for her to say "there is no deal." Was it signed yet? No. But a deal was in the works — there was indeed a deal. She knew that, and said the opposite.
That said, I appreciate the advice being offered in terms of some of the follow up questions that could have been asked by the Appeal's reporter. (Though I should say we don't for sure know that he *didn't* ask those questions.)
Cheers.
#5 Posted by Craig Silverman, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 03:26 PM
If he asked those questions, it should have been in the story.
Expect PR people to use crafty language at times to mask the withholding of information. It's one of the things they're paid to do. Reporters are paid to spot the squishy parts, devise precise questions and demand precise answers.
#6 Posted by Paul Knox, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 04:14 PM
I regret using the word "obvious [truth]" in my comment. It only confused the point. Fortunately, Paul Knox explained what I was trying to say, much better than I did. Thanks, Paul.
Here in Memphis, there are some of us who feel that the Commercial Appeal owes an apology to its readers for burying the story. The more cynical among us wonder if it had anything to do with the grocery store ad pages...
I do worry that the current generation of journalists are so trusting that their sources don't lie. Especially sources in the corporate public relations department. Oh my. I hope it's only the business reporters that are so trusting. Think how awful it would be if the nation's political reporters took their sources at face value. We might end up with eight-year wars and such.
#7 Posted by Michael C, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 04:20 PM
Here are the last five paragraphs to Bailey's story:
"Not only were Schnucks stores canceling its gas-card program -- which the newspaper reported Aug. 16 -- but the stores had quit distributing Schnucks-logo shirts to employees, weren't resupplying stores normally, were running out of items, and were sending the regional HR person back to St. Louis headquarters, sources told the newsroom.
"Some were frustrated that that there'd been no news reports about the deal.
""Just wondering why no one has picked up the news that Schnucks has sold to Kroger and is closing 5 to 6 stores," wrote one man in an Aug. 25 e-mail to The Commercial Appeal. "The impact on the local economy, the employees, vendors and competition should be a front page story."
"One person called anonymously in late August to report -- accurately, as it turns out -- Kroger would take over Schnucks stores on Sept. 10 and was keeping it quiet because the sale involved lots of job cuts.
"On Aug. 18, a Schnucks employee called the newspaper saying he'd heard the rumors and wondered if the newspaper had."
-----
That, in itself, is a story that should have appeared in the pages of the Commercial Appeal about 10 days ago (together with the Schnucks denial). But it didn't. It was buried.
And now the CA would like everybody to blame the Schnucks communications director for this lapse. But last I heard, she wasn't publishing a newspaper; she was looking after the interests of the private company she works for.
#8 Posted by Michael C, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 04:47 PM
There's a whole lot of "what the definition of 'is' is" going on here. If a deal isn't a deal until it's signed, how can a deal fall through? (Who knew PR people were so well-versed in Sartre?)
Likewise, "is selling" isn't a singularity, a single point in time. If the question was "Are the rumors true that Schnucks is selling its Memphis stores to Kroger?" then "I need to tell you there is no truth to these rumors" is unequivocal.
That said, what happened to "It is and always has been our policy not to comment on rumors or speculation"?
#9 Posted by Ann H, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 05:00 PM
Shocked, shocked that a PR person would blatantly mislead a reporter!!
#10 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 10:09 PM
Honest, professional PR people have been dealing with this kind of situation for decades, and it doesn't take a genius to follow the example. "Our policy is not to comment on these types of rumors," is a pretty standard "no comment" that deflects the assumption that a "no comment" is a de facto admission that something is going on. It allows the PR person to say, in essence, if you've got something more than rumors, prove it. Then it's up to the paper to decide whether or not the rumors are worth reporting. (Lots of picky editors prefer, you know, facts. At least that used to be the standard.)
The PR person gave out false information by intentionally creating a false impression. The fact that she can parse her words to prove she technically didn't lie means no reporter can trust her again in the future.
#11 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Mon 12 Sep 2011 at 01:40 PM
What is the point of this nonsense?
That we can't trust interested parties? Is THAT it?
That we need alternative points of view?
That PR people lie?
Is THAT it?
Seriously?
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 13 Sep 2011 at 12:20 AM