I was thinking about this and I agree it has to be perfect. However we should also understand that the PR from the company is not to do the job of the media/journalists. Nader was very clear a few CC ago that they do not need advice on how to write a PR, They are under scrutiny from the SEC and their own lawyers to only say what is factually correct. They are not to embellish too much or educate the reader as to what the PR means at any level for the most part.
It is the job of a journalist to read the PR and ask questions of the company. They then translate in their own way to their readers. They are the ones to point out the significance, the impact, the scope the science explanation. It is better the media translates and presents info, they are not under SEC or nearly the legal constraints that stops a company from over embellishing the meaning of the PR. The PR is to be a matter of fact declaration.
We all went down this road a couple months ago trying to re-write the PRs the way we want them. We should focus on the media picking this up and getting the story, not expecting the PR to do the work of a blog post, twitter, newspaper article etc..
It is the job of a journalist to read the PR and ask questions of the company. They then translate in their own way to their readers. They are the ones to point out the significance, the impact, the scope the science explanation. It is better the media translates and presents info, they are not under SEC or nearly the legal constraints that stops a company from over embellishing the meaning of the PR. The PR is to be a matter of fact declaration.
We all went down this road a couple months ago trying to re-write the PRs the way we want them. We should focus on the media picking this up and getting the story, not expecting the PR to do the work of a blog post, twitter, newspaper article etc..
6
