06 Dec Work Partnerships Could Have Some Daring Blowbacks, Ask The Media And Corporations For Examples
Partnerships between 2 different working roles (or more than 2) is a very common concept in many of the world’s industries. These partnerships are done in the hopes of something good, but actually, there are some ‘daring’ effects that these working partnerships bring to the table. By daring, I mean it could push you to some directions that you might not even want to go to, some related with ruining other workers’ careers or reputations (or both). Let’s use the partnerships that the media has with corporate public relations as our point of view for this occasion.
Work partnerships are forged to reach a goal that the 2 working roles or the ‘big house’ they’re in have, whether they have different kinds of goals or they share a common goal with one another. The partnership that various countries’ media have with public relations from many corporations is also a known concept that has been growing throughout the existence of our world. Public relations (especially the ones representing big companies) are always attached to the media to maintain their corporations’ public images, which would not exist without the involvement of the media.
Same with the media, it’s not rare for media to have a closer relationship with one company compared to the rival of that specific company, and of course, media would spotlight the positive exposures and spread the awareness of a company that is close to them so people could have some sort of opinion or stance (or both) regarding that company. These partnerships are done for the sake of both sides, right? Corporations need exposure from the media, and the media needs something for them to share with the world. To gain what they both strive for, there are some ‘negative’ parts involved in-between their partnership.
I have actually mentioned one of the ‘negative’ blowbacks that a partnership between a media and a corporation could cause, and that is a biased form of spotlight that media gives to companies they are closer with. One of the media’s most important traits is their neutrality. Media exists to be a bridge between a story, and the people of the world. The media is here to tell people what they deserve to know. Media is present for the sake of the people, that’s why they should remain neutral, not siding with any sides whatsoever because their allegiance is to the people of the world.
Unfortunately, putting the spotlight on a specific corporation that a media is close with AND not putting as much spotlight on another corporation that they’re not close with, sounds like something that is not neutral. What’s more unfortunate is how much that thing actually happens in real life, you could say it has become a habit for today’s media and corporations’ public images.
Let’s use an example by a phenomenon, if you see a new company product line or anything by a certain company being spotlighted on news coverage on a certain television channel, there’s a 90% chance that the television channel you’re watching has a close relationship with the corporation which product is being spotlighted on that TV channel.
Don’t forget about another product line by a different company that the same television channel also covers on their TV program, and see if that product or company has the same amount of spotlight as the product line that you first saw as a subject of this analysis we’re doing. How to tell which company is more spotlighted and which one is less?
The amount of screen time the television channel gave to highlight that company’s product or service line, the production value that the channel gave to spotlight that company, and what’s the difference between each company spotlights that the TV gave to each of them, which one looks better than the other. That way, you can do the math (it doesn’t exactly involve numbers and counting, well not much, but you know what I mean!).
How ‘close’ certain media is with certain corporations involves money, and that brings us to the second ‘daring blowback’ that takes us deeper inside the phenomenon after the whole ‘media spotlighting a company’s product’ thing. A lot of things can be spotlighted by the media when the corporation speaks with the m-word. On the other side, a lot of things can also be hidden by the media, when the corporation went for the m-word again.
I took a Public Relations class 2 years ago. My lecturer organized a carnival once, on the streets of Jakarta, Indonesia. A few media are present to do news reports and coverages of the event. One of the carnival cars had a, let’s say, problematic brake. That car couldn’t stop, some of the pageant participants that stands on that car falls down, getting some minor injuries. Besides those injuries, some property damages were also done. You’d expect lots of people to find out about the incident since the whole carnival is reported by the media people, right?
Nope! The public relations representative from the corporate that handles the carnival managed to stop the media from spreading the words (and the videos, the pictures, you get what I’m going for) about the incident. So the media doesn’t let any information about the incident be shared with anyone, making sure that the corporation that handles the carnival doesn’t get any PR blowback. How does the PR persuade the media to not speak up about the whole incident or leak it to the public? A little persuasion, a little industry powerplay, and of course a little bit of the m-word.
All this information isn’t supposed to be known by common people (including me) who are not part of the media or any corporation PRs. But thankfully, some people opened my eyes to the whole PR and media thing, particularly my Public Relations Class Lecturer. Thankfully again, this whole situation opened my eyes to work partnerships in general, how there are some dark sides behind all the good goals those works are trying to achieve.