Here’s a leading question: what happens when you mix a young, eager reporter who has no apparent understanding of federal contracting, with an administration known for its distrust of the media? In the case of Mediaite reporter Amy Russo, you get, to quote Shakespeare, “a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

President Donald Trump’s attitude toward the media is… unconventional. His attacks on the credibility of the press are cynical, unhealthy, and will ultimately prove to be counterproductive. And the fact that some public affairs officials at federal agencies seem to be following the White House’s lead in their dismissive treatment of the press does not help matters in the slightest.

But that does not mean that every time a Federal agency uses a term that sounds vaguely threatening to the untrained ear, a full-out assault on the First Amendment is imminent.

“Media monitoring” is not surveillance

Mediaite is part of the group of sites run by Dan Abrams, who is also ABC News chief legal affairs anchor. It bills itself as “a trusted source on the intersection of politics and media across the political spectrum.” If Monday’s article on the Department of Homeland Security’s April request for proposals for “media monitoring services” is any indication, there’s no reason to trust it at all.

Russo’s article took a routine request for a service that countless organizations in and out of government perform, and tries to turn it into the next “Big Brother is watching” paranoid fantasy. She even tries to paint it as a bipartisan concern by quoting from a 2012 House Homeland Security Committee hearing where Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Patrick Meehan questioned the motives of the DHS collecting information on reporters. (It’s worth noting that Meehan resigned last month after revelations that the government paid sexual harassment settlements on his behalf).

Without bothering to understand what “media monitoring services” truly entail, or why DHS, or any other organization for that matter, might want to maintain a database of journalists who write about it and what tone their articles took, Russo went running to academics eager to draw a direct line to the latest threat to liberty.

Just as it is not difficult to find a young soldier willing to talk badly about his superiors, it is also rather easy to find professors willing to jump to the most extreme analysis of Trump administration motives. But that doesn’t mean their opinions ought to carry any weight.

The solicitation’s statement of work asked for, among other services, a “media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” The database was to include what is known in the public relations business as “sentiment analysis,” a determination of whether a particular article’s tone was positive, negative, or merely factual regarding the organization. This is what has the forces of resistance most upset.

“The possibility that DHS could use that platform to create a heat map of dissent poses pointed First Amendment concerns,” Carrie DeCell, a staff attorney at Columbia University’s Knight first Amendment Institute told Mediaite.

Sure, it could. But it won’t. Because as much as it would pain the perpetually aggrieved to admit, the Department of Homeland Security has lots of more important things to do that keep tabs on journalists who write bad things about the Trump administration. Because let’s face it: Kirstjen Nielsen not Heinrich Himmler, and the DHS has no desire to track reporters who write bad things about the Trump administration — if only for no other reason than it would be easier to maintain a database of journalists who don’t write bad things about the Trump administration.

The DHS spokesman, Tyler Q. Houlton, did himself (and DHS) no favors by dismissing those concerned about the program as “tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists.” We maybe need to work on our media relations skills a little more, Tyler.

What DHS wants is just good business

Forgive me for blowing my own horn for a moment. As a retired Army Reserve officer and a current defense contractor, I know a good deal about national defense policy, and make it my business to learn more every day so I can provide cogent analysis of current events.

But the field of public relations is in my wheelhouse. I’ve been developing my strategic communications skills for more than two decades, both in and out of the military. I am an honor graduate of the DOD’s Defense Information School, where public affairs officers get their training, and hold a master’s degree in strategic public relations from The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

This stuff is my bread and butter.

When it comes to public relations, or public affairs as the government calls it, your government has a constitutional obligation to tell you how it’s spending your tax dollars. But it also has an obligation to itself and its employees to tell its own story. The government owes you not just a recounting of what it’s doing, but an explanation of why it’s doing it. As powerful as social media seems, to tell its story effectively the government needs the press.

But the number one complaint of reporters is the way inexperienced, or just lazy, public relations practitioners pitch them stories that are not part of their “beat.” A national security reporter does not want waste time reading a pitch about nutritional supplements. Reporters constantly advise PR people to understand their niche and speak to it or not to speak at all.

Companies like Meltwater and Cision (both of whom I have used at different points in my career) charge organizations tens of thousands of dollars a year to compile media coverage, to sort that coverage by reporter… and yes, to gauge that reporter’s tone.

Any competent media relations officer, whether in government or business, wants to understand the reporter from whom they’ve just received a query. Knowing how an individual reporter has covered my organization helps me to frame my response. Someone who has demonstrated a pattern of hostility merits a different response than someone on whom I can rely simply to report the facts.

A truly good media relations person knows this from experience. But having the information close at hand saves an hour or two of internet searching. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

Furthermore, government communicators have an obligation to their organizations to tell the story in the most effective way possible. It is naive to believe that public affairs officers merely regurgitate facts. Their job, like it or not, is to sell their organization’s mission to the public. Doing so requires an intimate understanding of how their messages are being received and retransmitted.

Corporations do it all the time; any company that doesn’t track the sentiment of its media mentions, while also actively pitching those reporters most disposed to giving it favorable coverage, is doing its shareholders a disservice.

You, I, and every other taxpayer, are the government’s shareholders. I’m completely comfortable with a government entity that puts in the effort to ensure we get accurate information about how, where, and why the government is spending our money.

Related News

Tom McCuin is a strategic communication consultant and retired Army Reserve Civil Affairs and Public Affairs officer whose career includes serving with the Malaysian Battle Group in Bosnia, two tours in Afghanistan, and three years in the Office of the Chief of Public Affairs in the Pentagon. When he’s not devouring political news, he enjoys sailboat racing and umpiring Little League games (except the ones his son plays in) in Alexandria, Va. Follow him on Twitter at @tommccuin