NOV 28 — The line between public relations spin doctoring and independent objective opinion can often be easily blurred and naive experts who are not careful can be caught in between. Just ask Professor Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, and he can probably tell you.

Last week, The Independent broke the news that FBC Media was being investigated by British broadcasting regulator Ofcom in a global news fixing row.

The newspaper noted that FBC was said to have tried to “cultivate” the world-famous environmental economist and other leading opinion formers in the green movement for the documentaries it made for the BBC and other news broadcasters, including CNBC.

“FBC Media claims in its promotional literature that it targeted Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York, to be an ‘ambassador’ for its corporate client on programmes it made about the controversial palm oil industry in Malaysia,” read the report dated November 17. The Independent’s story also noted that FBC worked for Sime Darby, the world’s biggest palm oil producer.

In an immediate reaction, Sachs issued a statement saying that he was “surprised and dismayed to see this completely inaccurate and utterly absurd portrayal of him.” “He is not an ambassador or anything else for this company (Sime Darby). He has absolutely no personal relationship with the company and has never, indeed would never, serve as an ‘ambassador’ or ‘champion’ to any corporation,” the statement noted.

In my years as a journalist, I’ve been privy to plenty of PR spin doctoring. Some of the things I’ve seen and experienced were innocent and perhaps downright silly or hilarious when I recall them. Other spin doctoring wasn’t so funny and left me utterly flummoxed. 

While I would note that paying money to specialised PR firms to enhance the publicity and image of a country isn’t new, the heights to which countries would go today to get ahead have reached an alarming proportion, exemplified by what has happened over this fiasco.

Given that palm oil is one of Malaysia’s most lucrative commodities, Malaysia needs to boost its image especially when dealing with the thorny issue of deforestation in the palm oil industry.

But the way FBC went about conducting its PR spin has not only seemingly blown up in its face but has also brought about international condemnation and vilification of its practices in other media.

PR scandals involving large corporations are not new. So what makes this fiasco any different? 

To begin with, I think it has to do with the fact that it involves not a private company but instead a sovereign nation and very likely public expenditure. These factors make the issue that much more open to public scrutiny.

But perhaps the more telling thing is that it involves an alleged collusion between the media, a government-linked company and a government. 

As someone who’s an active practitioner in the media industry, I’m reminded that there must be clear lines drawn between the work we undertake for clients and the work we do as a journalist or in a news organisation. This is why many publications draw the line between an advertorial and an editorial. 

Thus, it’s not uncommon practice to find a publication having separate and clearly demarcated personnel to handle advertorials and editorials. And when the article appears in a reputable publication, clear lines are also drawn between what is deemed to be an independent piece of fact-based journalistic article and what is paid for — or should I say, “a sponsored” article, a term that has been widely popularised by Google. 

But the thing is, as old-school news organisations stare down the barrel of dwindling advertising, news organisations and indeed the personnel that run them may be tempted to blur the lines between these age-old, prudent and accepted practices.

The fact is truth can be conveniently stretched — even outright distorted — and often the power to do that comes in the form of dollars and cents.

Although the BBC or CNBC may not have been complicit in FBC’s plan to try and pass off its programme as factual news stories, the FBC/Sachs case only demonstrates the fact that even the most reputable of journalistic organisations could have taken for granted the programming they aired, passing them off as independent stories produced by reputable news organisations.

The media has often been dubbed as the Fourth Estate, and for good reason too. In a functioning democracy, the media plays its part by watching over the other three pillars of government. 

But in this increasingly highly competitive, profit-driven world, who will act as the watchdog of the media? 

At the end of the day, I am of the opinion that only pressure internally and externally can bring check and balances to the media.

From within, news organisations must value integrity and truth before revenue and profits. There is nothing wrong with being paid by clients for articles that carry targeted messaging — so long as it is clearly labelled as such — in order that readers or viewers know this fact. Stories that are paid for simply have no place in the sections that pass off as factual news reports.

And the external factor that can keep the media in check is globalisation. Because of the interconnectivity brought about by the Internet, other news organisations, media watchdogs, non-governmental organisations and even individuals could potentially keep watch over the kind of news that is being reported by questioning the source of the news reports.

In the final analysis, these pressure points working in synergy with each other could possibly be the last bastion of check and balance in today’s increasingly competitive world of spin doctoring, ensuring that democracy will remain the order of the day.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.