Are NZ journalists and PR practitioners really enemies? New research suggests otherwise

In the world of media, newsroom reporters and public relations practitioners have long been cast as natural adversaries. One plays the nosy newshound, always sniffing around for a story. The other is often portrayed as the gatekeeping spin doctor, carefully controlling the flow of information. When journalists move into communications or PR – as many do in search of better pay and more stable employment – it’s jokingly known in the industry as crossing “to the dark side”. From the outside, the stereotype has an obvious logic. Journalists are tasked with holding organisations to account, while PR professionals are often employed to represent those organisations and communicate on their behalf. In reality, this relationship isn’t so clear-cut. Earlier research suggests that while New Zealand journalists frequently express vocal cynicism toward PR, their daily interactions are rarely built on outright hostility. Instead, the dynamic can range from guarded professional rivalry to close, pragmatic collaboration. After interviewing journalists across New Zealand as part of my doctoral research, I found a similarly nuanced picture. What journalists really think While there has been much research exploring questions of power, dependence and the growing influence of PR on the news agenda, less attention has been paid to a simpler question. That is how journalists decide whether to trust the people they deal with. Do they automatically distrust anyone working in communications – or do they make case-by-case judgements? In my research, I looked at how journalists explained the behaviour of individual PR professionals during everyday interactions. Attribution theory – which examines how people judge the motives behind others’ actions – provided the framework for understanding those decisions. The interviews showed journalists rarely divide communications people into “good” and “bad”. Instead, they constantly assess why someone is behaving the way they are. Is a media adviser or PR professional genuinely trying to help explain a complicated issue? Are they constrained by legal or organisational rules? Or are they deliberately trying to influence or limit coverage? Those questions were important to answer because journalists see themselves as serving the public interest. Interviewees consistently described fact-checking, consulting multiple sources and maintaining editorial independence as fundamental parts of the job. In this sense, their healthy scepticism isn’t reserved just for PR practitioners but applies to virtually every source they handle. Several journalists also recognised that most public relations practitioners are simply doing the jobs they’ve been employed to do. They distinguished between trying to “spin” coverage and simply representing an organisation’s interests. Journalists spoke positively about practitioners who understood newsroom pressures, responded quickly, provided accurate information and facilitated access to decision-makers or technical experts. Over time, those repeated interactions helped build professional reputations. Those who consistently provide reliable information become trusted contacts, while others become known for claims that reporters are less willing to accept at face value. Even then, trust has limits. Journalists stressed that credibility never replaces verification. A trusted source might make reporting more efficient, but reporters still regarded independent checking as central to their role. Professional trust, in other words, reflects confidence earned through repeated interactions rather than unquestioning belief. Judging credibility under pressure These findings come as the fields of journalism and public relations – and the relationship between them – continue to evolve. While public relations has grown into a broader strategic profession, New Zealand’s journalism workforce has been steadily hollowed out by successive rounds of restructurings and newsroom closures. The mass redundancies at TVNZ and a now-closed NewsHub, along with job cuts at publishers such as NZME and Stuff, have left fewer reporters covering more stories under greater time pressure. When journalists have less time, fewer specialist colleagues and heavier workloads, carefully evaluating competing claims becomes more difficult. Good journalism takes time: to verify information, build trusted professional relationships and test competing explanations. As newsroom resources shrink, those tasks become harder, particularly during complex crises or fast-moving public debates. The implications extend beyond journalism itself. Independent news media play a vital democratic role by holding governments, corporations and other powerful institutions to account. That makes understanding how journalists make those judgements more important than ever. My research suggests the reality is more sophisticated than the popular image of journalists and public relations practitioners locked in constant conflict. For now, at least, New Zealand journalists appear to retain the capacity to make careful professional judgements about credibility, motive and public interest. In an era of media layoffs, online misinformation and declining trust in institutions, preserving that capacity may prove just as important as preserving the newsrooms themselves.