Grab a cup of tea, sit back and hear from Alastair Campbell, Will Whitehorn, Darcy Willson-Rymer, Steve Earl and myself, on the future of media, corporate reputation and public relations.

These were two of the findings from the Business Leaders in Communications Study 2012 study published this week by VMA Group.

The study reported that fewer than half of communication directors believe that they have a major influence on board level strategic decision-making.”

These two sets of numbers are undoubtedly connected.

I’ve created a Storify summary of the launch event on Tuesday evening as told via the conversation on Twitter.

Respondents to the study have yet to recognise the role that social media increasing plays as part of the news agenda and the opportunity that is provides for organisations to engage with their audiences and participate directly in their markets.

Week-in-week-out corporate organisations take a reputational thrashing from the cocktail of traditional and social media week. This week it has been the turn of LA Fitness and McDonalds.

The start point for a comms director in understanding the developing media landscape should be a review of the role that social media plays in reputations, and the implication of all editorial content (conventional, social and their own branded) being shared socially.

In 2012 earned media, more commonly known as traditional media, is influenced as much by the professionals creating and publishing content as it is by those who consume media and respond instantly.

It’s not atypical for a media organisation such as The Guardian to publish three or four versions of a story as it develops, or to report it via live blog.

All forms of media have had to become social in a bid to remain relevant. Anyone with access to the Internet can create, edit, share and publish content to a global audience.

The media agenda is no longer neatly defined by the near 24 hour cycle of print. Instead it is set by individuals breaking stories via Facebook, Flickr, Google+ Twitter and YouTube.

The respondents to the VMA Group study have yet to identify with this shift. Simon Francis labelled them dinosaurs. I’m not going to be so harsh as I’d like the opportunity to sell them Speed’s services to help them through the process of understanding the new reputation landscape.

My view, Speed’s view, is that social media is returning the public relations industry to its roots of engagement in a two-way dialogue rather than a means of broadcast via the proxy of media relations.

It’s a journey back to the future of the industry defined by Eric Goldman, Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee.

Brave organisations have the opportunity to participate with their audiences via their own branded media and social media channels.

The opportunity for the PR industry is develop and understanding of the impact and interaction of owned, earned, and social media on an organisation’s reputation.

Measurement wasn’t raised as an issue during the VMA Group event. But herein is our greatest opportunity as communicators. Every action and interaction online leaves a digital footprint and provides a mechanism to measure results and take a step closer to proving return on investment.

If the PR and communications industry invested the effort in tackling these issues communications would command greater respect in the boardroom.

Thanks to VMA Group for investing in the report and organising a really excellent debate that will no doubt run and run.

It also happens to be Speed’s view.

Command and control was the defining communication strategy of Campbell’s time in Downing Street.

A splash in a couple of national papers and coverage on BBC TV News would enable the Government to lead the news agenda for 24 hours he said.

No longer.

A decade on and the news cycle is defined by stories breaking minute-by-minute on the internet and not by the daily production cycle of news print. Meanwhile there are an increasing number of outlets fighting for the attention of consumers.

“The agenda is being set as much by those who consume the media, and respond instantly, as those who are trying to exert that control,’ said Campbell.

It has made the business of public relations much tougher. We have entered an era of authentic campaigning.

“Organisations must develop a narrative and build their reputation by landing stories in the media over time,” said Campbell.

I’d argue that media relations has only ever been a proxy to reach an organisation’s audiences.

It’s why it is critical for organisations to be authentic, engage directly with their audiences, and build reputation over time.

It’s a long term job.

Tonight Alastair will talk at a Speed sales event about the end of the age of spin and the need for a more authentic style of communication in the future.

The fragmentation of traditional media over the last two decades and the rapid rise of social media has brought brand reputation into sharp focus like never before.

Disaffected shareholders, customers and staff are noisily voicing their opinions to a global audience via the Internet. Meanwhile the established media is shared in new ways.

No one knows whether it’s going to get even worse. Will conventional media find a sustainable business model as attention continues to move online? Will new social forms of media over power brands?

Speed’s view is that you will never have complete control over your brand’s reputation. You never have.

But you might be able to get more control over your reputation than you’ve had in the past if you are willing to engage directly with your markets rather than via the proxy of traditional media.

That starts with a whole new approach to planning – because of the changed media – and a degree of organisational change for communications teams.

We believe that the future of organisational communication, and therefore the future of reputation management, lies in participation of a brand with its audience.

It’s a return to public relations in its purist form and it’s a huge opportunity for corporate communicators.

A dull but worthy topic you might think. Not one bit. Wikipedia is a top ranking site for search. It frequently takes the number one slot in Bing and Google search results, Alexa ranks it as one of the top ten sites on the Internet, and its credibility makes it a starting point for internet research.

Wikipedia is a community. As Julio Romo highlights PRs can register as contributors but must follow Wikipedia’s guidelines:

• Contributions or edits must have a neutral point of view and no conflict of interest
• Content must be verifiable
• Articles must not contain new analysis or synthesis

It’s the first issue: neutrality and conflict where the PR industry falls down.

Wikipedia has published guidelines for the PR industry. In its Social Media Guidelines published last year the CIPR advises that PR practitioners seeking to update a Wikipedia entry on behalf of a client should work with an editor to update the relevant page per the CIPR’s Social Media Guidelines.

This is social media at its most social. The ultimate arbiter is the community. If anyone makes a contribution that the Wikipedia community deems to breach the guidelines it will be removed. To misquote James Grunig or more recently Philip Sheldrake, it’s a platform for symmetrical communication.

But Phil Gomes and Stuart Bruce don’t think the existing Wikipedia guidelines are sufficient. Gomes cites company data and information that is out-of-date and Bruce reckons that the very community nature of Wikipedia is the natural playing field of activists.

In a response on Gomes’ blog Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says that he has yet to hear a cogent argument for PR practitioners to directly edit entries. He says paid advocates don’t make good editors because they insert spin.

“The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article,” he said.

Wikipedia agreed last Thursday to meet with representatives of the CIPR to develop clearer guidance on this issue. Ahead of that meeting Philip Sheldrake has, appropriately enough, developed a wiki page on the CIPR Social Media wiki to kick off the discussion.

There’s been limited innovation in print in the UK since the launch of the now defunct four-colour Today national newspaper in 1986.

So it was a delight yesterday to learn of product design firm BERG’s till-receipt little printer that creates mini-newspapers with content curated from partners including FourSquare, Facebook, and The Guardian.

We’ve tinkered with a variety of socially curated applications to create personalised newspapers but without an editor the results are almost always disappointing. BERG’s simplicity may be the solution.

I’ve signed up for one.

Stop what you are doing right now. Head to iTunes and rent a copy of Page One: Inside The New York Times.

The movie tells the story of the fragmentation of media over a 12-month period spent in the news room at The Times.

Its not going to win any Pulitzer Prizes for reporting or storytelling but there are some wonderful moments as it fronts up to the issues that traditional news organisations are facing as ad revenue declines and audiences move from print to digital editions.

Times’ staffer David Carr debates the future of media on televised panel with Michael Wolff creator of the news aggregator Newser. Carr holds up a version of the Newser homepage with content from traditional media outlets removed.

It’s a neat stunt that shows without mainstream media there wouldn’t be a lot of content on Newser.

We watch as journalists’ debate the role of Wikileaks as a news organisation. The New York Times was one of three news organisations to partner with Wikileaks in the release of US cables in November last year.

We learn that US media organisations can no longer afford to travel with the US Presidential and that coverage of the election next year will inevitably be dumbed down as veteran reporters are replaced by “24-years olds with video cameras”.

At a time when the future of the news and the role of user generated content is an oft debated issue the movie shows the crucial role of editors to sift and validate as part of the news process.

During the CIPR TV presidential debate yesterday Rob Brown said that he’d tried hard during his career to bait a legal suit from Clifford. He said that he was surprised that Clifford didn’t come after him when he revealed a professional indiscretion in his book that Clifford had shared privately with him over lunch.

I headed to the bookshelf and picked off my copy of Brown’s book Public Relations and the Social Web to dig out the story.

“Many years ago I found myself sitting next to the celebrated British publicist Max Clifford at an industry lunch in Manchester at which he was the guest speaker. He had been responsible for bringing about the public disgrace of the British government minister David Mellor.

“Max Clifford revealed that David Mellor was having an affair with a little known actress called Antonia de Sancha. Clifford had touted the story that Mellor, a renowned Chelsea football fan, had asked the actress to make love to him whilst he was dressed in his Chelsea football shirt.

“The story made the front page of The Sun newspaper. During lunch, I took the opportunity to ask Mr Clifford whether the story had in fact been true. He laughed and admitted it was a total fabrication.”

Brown said that if he became President of the CIPR he’d front a spokesperson for every PR story that led a mainstream news agenda.

The fabric of social networks made up of trusted relationships means that content is forwarded on at speed.

McDonalds was the latest brand to discover this on Sunday evening when a link from a Canadian newspaper was circulated on Twitter.

The company stood accused of banning its staff from wearing poppies.

It’s a sensitive issue that inevitably generated outrage among Twitter users that didn’t stop to follow the link and spot that the story was 12-months old.

It had all the hallmarks of a Twitter smear.  McDonalds refuted the allegation yesterday.

It’s another example of the need for organisations to monitor social networks so that they are aware of the conversations that are taking place both about themselves and their markets and be quick to call out bullshit.

Social media lacks an editorial function unlike traditional forms of media. Users need to think and fact check before they share content.