Interesting read over at Slate on this week's media wars.

This week two giant companies took extraordinary efforts to gin up more favorable press coverage. GM, the largest automaker, said it would yank its advertising from the Los Angeles Times—the largest paper in the nation's largest car market—because it was unhappy with the Times' coverage. And Wal-Mart, which generally treats the press like a dead fish, invited reporters to its Bentonville, Ark., bunker for a media day. - Daniel Gross

I've been in their shoes before - both with media and analysts. Respect for independent journalism or analysis shouldn't come with a requirement to support that "reporting" with advertising dollars. I'm surprised more companies don't exercise their right to not fund views that don't agree with.

It's interesting that, even in the Slate story, there is an implication that advertising dollars result in a more compliant media - and that this is the intent of these companies. Maybe so. But maybe these companies just don't want to fund those views they regard to be as unfair or inaccurate. Or, whose bias they accept but don't agree with and don't want to fund. The implicit assumption in the media's argument is that journalists and their editors are fair, professional and without bias. Which as we have seen in the last year couldn't be further from the truth. Now I'm not attempting to brush all journalists with the same brush. There are many great reporters who are ethical, fair and accurate. There are many companies of a similar ilk.

Where the Slate story is right is that if companies engage in these kinds of activity with the belief they can influence the analysis or reporting, they are generally wrong. Vengence would be stupidity in this instance. Especially when it comes to Big Media. All they are likely to do is aggravate the situation.

For embattled executives, it's easy and convenient to think that the media—not their business model or management—is the problem. Morgan Stanley CEO Philip Purcell, fighting off an attempted coup, told the Financial Times today that the challenges will go away if the media stop quoting the dissidents. - Daniel Gross

The morals here for communicators are common ones - pick your battles carefully and get your own house in order before criticizing another. And be clear on what you are trying to achieve - are you trying to punish the media, make a point or simply not fund a point of view? If it's the last of these, you'd better prepared for a long hard road and one heck of a lot of confusion as to your motives. If it's the first two, there are much better ways of achieving your goal.

Either way, how you behave in responding to and dealing with the media says a great deal about your brand. Not only it's quality and integrity, but it's current status and challenges. Perhaps the very act of media relations needs to be considered more carefully by brandistas as a powerful influencer of the brand?