Coffee and communications

One of the strongest qualities of the media is the values that are supposed to underpin it – a determination to tell the truth, be balanced, hold the powerful to account.

But does the world of PR support or undermine this? And how complicit is the media?

Splashed across the front page of the Express last Thursday was: “Coffee Fights Alzheimer’s”. The story was simple – apparently drinking three to five cups a day (described as moderate amounts) may cut your risk of what’s quickly becoming the most talked about disease in the media.

On the front page there was no mention of who funded the study or where the results had been published. But there was a comment from Dr Iva Holmerova, vice chairman of Alzheimer Europe – an authoritative sounding voice.

Buried on page 4, I found the real source - the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee; a non-profit organisation dedicated to the disclosure of scientific information about coffee and health and funded by seven major coffee companies including Nestle and Lavazza.

Interestingly, in the Express’ online story, the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee is mentioned in the second paragraph. If this version of the copy was in the paper, the Institute would have made the front page no problem. I wonder how that happened?

So what?

Despite the temptation, this isn’t to say the findings aren’t legitimate – the Institute’s website says that it supports researchers to disclose results regardless of outcomes and there is credible, published research on the site. But it’s quite difficult to find lay information about the studies that aren’t so favourable of coffee and that’s certainly not reflected in the PR generated coverage.  

In fact a couple of weeks ago, the same Institute of Scientific Information on Coffee put out a story saying that drinking coffee “slashes” your risk of diabetes to mark World Diabetes Day.

This wasn’t based on a new study, but a review of previous research papers. The press picked it up – it was covered by the Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post among others. This was an example of a classic PR tactic - taking advantage of a calendar news hook. 

Legitimate story or savvy PR?

The question is, are these legitimate stories, the product of savvy PR or the result of resource strangled journalism?

I think the answer is a mix of all three…

I’m not opposed to the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee, or the fact that it can earn media coverage with strong stories based on proper research. However, I do believe the media has a responsibility to point out the clear conflict of interest of research showing the health benefits of drinking coffee funded by the Europe’s largest coffee companies.

The fact that the research concludes that ‘further research is required’ – a statement backed up by the Alzheimer’s Society - suggests this story is being given more significance than it deserves. I certainly don’t assume there is inconclusive evidence or the need for further research from the headline.  Four paragraphs on page 23 might have been a more suitable location.   

Are we all in it together?

But my overriding sense with stories like this is that the comms and PR industry are sometimes complicit in buying in to the values of the media without really committing to them. I’m certain I’ve benefited from this in my job.

I’m sure the Express would say the story is accurate and balanced – it clearly states who funded the study and it offers a counter comment from the Alzheimer’s Society. But with the Express not making a judgment on the credibility of the research by placing it on the front page, does this really count as balanced, accurate reporting?

I’m sure the coffee companies would say there is no conflict here – the Institute is non-profit and committed to full disclosure. But then, why are Europe’s biggest coffee companies funding an organisation like this and why is it taking advantage of PR opportunities like World Diabetes Day? You have to admit this Institute is well placed to promote the health benefits of coffee.

In this sense, the story is meeting the objectives of both organisastions. For the Institute - it has successfully linked buying more of their its funder's products to protection against a deadly disease. And for the media, well they got an exclusive front page splash served up to them on a plate.

Plenty of food for thought (or maybe coffee is scientifically better)?