Former CNN correspondent-turned-PR consultant Gene Randall’s video “report” for oil giant Chevron might be unprecedented for how it blurred the line between public relations and journalism. But the Randall-Chevron production raises not only ethical questions, but also the question of whether a surge of newly pink-slipped reporters might go, as one media critic put it, “over to the dark side” and how that might further muddy the line between news and corporate advocacy.
As detailed in a recent New York Times article, when Chevron, America’s third largest corporation, heard that 60 Minutes was preparing a report about the $27 billion lawsuit filed against it for allegedly contaminating the Ecuador region of the Amazon rain forest, Chevron hired former TV newsman Randall to craft a video from the corporation’s perspective, which was posted on YouTube and Chevron’s Web site three weeks before the 60 Minutes report aired on May 3.
60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley’s investigation presented multiple perspectives while Randall’s included only Chevron officials and consultants. Everyone interviewed in Randall’s piece, in other words, was paid by Chevron, including Randall himself.
Randall’s video also clearly strives to resemble an authentic news report, employing classic stylistic TV news techniques, while never informing the viewer it’s a Chevron production. Most deceptive, however, is that Randall—looking like the consummate TV newsman—begins the video with the accompanying graphic “Gene Randall Reporting” and concludes with the voiceover: “This is Gene Randall reporting.”
Yet Randall, who was laid off from CNN in 2001 and runs the corporate consulting firm Gene Randall Enterprises, told The New York Times, “This is not a news report. This is a client hiring a provider to tell its side of the story.” Moreover, speaking with the National Journal Online, he said, “I don’t portray it as a piece of journalism, but I used journalistic techniques in telling Chevron’s side of the story.” (Reached by phone, Randall declined to comment for this article.)
Author and media critic Norman Solomon thought it was absolutely “deceptive” for Randall “to sign off with the claim that he’s been ‘reporting.’”
“And the whole effort by Chevron is just another attempt at media spin by a huge corporation with plenty to hide — with the added twist of hiring a former journalist to implicitly pretend that he’s being a journalist while flaking for Chevron to defend the indefensible,” Solomon wrote in an e-mail interview.
Kelly McBride, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute, a non-profit journalism training center in Florida, agreed that Randall’s use of the word “reporting” in the video was clearly intended to mislead.
“I guarantee you that is intentional,” McBride said in a phone interview. “He was hired to imitate journalism and that’s what he did.” Yet she was not surprised to see it and expected such techniques to become increasingly prevalent because of today’s ease of distribution.
“You can just put it up on YouTube now and if you can get it to go viral, you can easily trick your audience into thinking this is an authentic news report,” said McBride.
Steve Rendall, senior analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a national media watch group, found Randall’s defense “disingenuous” and a distortion of the truth. “He is technically using some journalistic techniques…but in a selective and biased way,” Rendall explained in a phone interview.
Solomon also saw Randall’s approach as part of a broader effort by Chevron to exploit the air of credibility that journalism and venerable news outlets can lend, pointing to its relationship with PBS’s NewsHour:
“Under Jim Lehrer, the NewsHour takes big bucks from Chevron and then allows Chevron to be, in effect, part of the program every night — presenting itself as imbued with a civic spirit, environmentally committed, noble and all-around good neighbors of everyone on the planet.”
McBride said that as more corporations begin to package public relations and publicity messages in news formats, unemployed journalists flocking to corporate PR jobs are not the only cause for concern.
“Even if we weren’t having the economic crisis in journalism…but we still had the same opening of the floodgates of information [via online social media], I think that it would be happening,” McBride explained.

At this point, whenever I hear of a journalism venture coming from a School of Communications, I get very cynical - it seems awfully unclear on the concept.
#1 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 01:43 PM
Explained, eh? Good verb. Imparts a sense of objectivity.
I watched the 60 Minutes segment and have been to Ecuador on Chevron's dime. My view of the segment.
You quote Norman Solomon and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting? Very amusing. Otherwise, this article is imbued with the same arrogance that has brought mainstream media into disrepute.
#2 Posted by Carter Wood, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 03:59 PM
Elaborate please, Carter Wood. In what way was Pelley's report biased?
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 06:37 PM
Great article on an important topic. Expose the shills!
#4 Posted by Pwning Faces, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 05:38 AM
Most people don't question the integrity of their news sources. Is that because we never really had to b/c news sources were less biased a few years back? Is this trend of biased and implicitly deceiving so-called "news" stories new? Or just being put into practice more often and more skillfully?
#5 Posted by Michelé, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 10:19 AM
Carter: specifically, what are your problems w/ the criticism of Gene Randall for "playacting" as a real reporter? Remember, he hasn't been a real journalist since 2001. You have no problem w/ what he's done? Should Jacobson have quoted media critics like the insane Brent Bozell from the Media Research Center or someone from the ridiculously named Accuracy in Media? Those are propaganda outfits. Norman Solomon and Steve Rendall and others from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have shown themselves to be real media critics dealing in facts. Tell us when or where they've been shown to be inaccurate or biased. They hold the MSM's feet to the fire. Seems like this piece follows in that same tradition.
#6 Posted by clashbeat, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 12:58 PM
Re my comment above ("At this point, whenever I hear of a journalism venture coming from a School of Communications, I get very cynical...") - ok, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...
(in this case, it's a safe guess)
#7 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Thu 18 Jun 2009 at 09:14 PM
Thanks to articles like this, I hope it'll be twice as hard for ex-reporters such as Randall to pull these PR stunts. During J-School, I don't think our classes held enough talk about reporters drifting towards PR, but that idea/ Jacobson's kicker sends a chill down my spine.
#8 Posted by Audrey Tran, CJR on Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 11:27 PM
I have lived the past 4 years of my life in Ecuador and have been present there while all this turmoil has occurred. During this time I have spent at least 1 year of traveling in the jungle areas of Ecuador. When there some locals showed me that they could literally light the surface of the water on fire because of the amount of oil present in the river. I don't think that corporations such as Chevron should be able to launch such a false story in order to improve their public relations image. An oil company, A VICTIM??? Come on.
#9 Posted by Daniel, CJR on Sun 25 Oct 2009 at 12:19 PM