The folks behind the UK website Churnalism.org are shocked—shocked—by the revelation that more than half the news reported by mainstream media had its origins in material released by PR people.

The first time I heard a similar statistic had to be 15 years ago—at a PR conference, no less. What’s surprising to the Churnalism crowd is old news for many of us. The question, though, is whether this is truly a cause for concern or a big yawn.

One of the roles PR plays on behalf of clients/employers is to help the organization tell its story. When you consider the number of organizations a single business reporter is tasked with covering, it’s just not reasonable to expect that she can stay on top of all their corporate moves, legal filings, product releases, brand announcements and other updates. There isn’t enough time to make daily calls to every organization on her beat.

Press releases and pitches are the means by which organizations let the press know what they’re up to. While the whole press release process has gotten out of hand in the technology world (leading to a surge of hate for press releases), in other industries they continue to serve a useful function, and many reporters are grateful for the information even as they lament the bad press releases through which they have to cull in order to find real news of interest to their readers.

Even in the tech world, there is recognition of the value of a company helping journalists stay aware of what’s going on:

It’s a routine argument that press releases are relics of a bygone era. Why not just blog it? new-media pundits ask. But a press release contains all the information about its subject; a good blogger would target only the information of interest to his audience. A press release ideally serves both bloggers (both inside the company and outside) and the press write a relevant story. Big-news press releases are designed to serve as an information resource, not the story itself. If anything, a blogger—even the CEO—would link to a press release where more information is available to those readers who are interested. Besides, like them or not, good press releases work (PDF).

When you consider that the coverage obtained by these means are “earned” rather than “paid”—leaving it to reporters’ and editors’ judgment whether any given item is worth coverage—the process is far more ethical and balanced than, say, lobbying, in which organizations donate money to a campaign in exchange for access to a politician after he wins election or re-election.

The problem Churnalism.org raises isn’t that organizations send out releases and make pitches. They’re more concerned about the volume of these that wind up in any given news outlet’s mix; it’s with alarm that Nick Davies cites the 54% in his book, “Flat Earth News.”

In the PR world, the Churnalism.org assertions provoked frantic responses, worries that the public would see the production of news as a collusion between journalists and PR. The notion is ridiculous. Any PR professional knows the media are not our friends. If they can get more eyballs by kicking our clients when they’re down, they will. It’s their job. But nevertheless, there’s a long-understood relationships between journlists and PR; we are one of their many information sources.

Again, that’s nothing new and has ever been thus. Again, how else can any reporter stay abreast of everything going on in every organization they cover? But Churnalism.org is even more concerned about the number of press releases that appear unchanged from their original form in the newspaper or website. In a sting operation, Churnalism.com created an absurd fake press release about a new-product launch, a garter belt that would send a message to the husband if the wife got aroused, a sort of chastity garter belt. The story was picked up and reported without verification.

Of course, it’s not the first fake press release to get coverage, nor will it be the last. While it’s certainly an embarrassment to the outlet that first carried the story, others who picked it up most likely assumed that first outlet had fact-checked; that is, the fact that another media outlet ran it served as validation.

You can listen to On The Media’s Bob Garfield talk with Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust discuss Churnalism.com and the garter belt press release here (or read the transcript):

But it’s also worth looking at the nature of the release. It’s a simple product announcement. This is what Alex Singleton, in a letter to PRWeek’s UK edition, called a “commodity story.” It’s different than, say, an organizational announcement, news of an acquisition or merger, a significant material statement, a recall or some other news of consequence.

My first full-time job was with a trade weekly called California Apparel News, which somewhat boastfully referred to itself as the Women’s Wear Daily of the West. This was 1975, so my memory may be a bit blurry, but I recall there were four reporters preparing copy for a tabloid that could run 80 pages. It was simply impossible for four writers to produce original journalism for all those pages. (It didn’t help that the publisher frequently reminded us that editorial was just there to fill the space between the ads.) We spent our time on the significant stories of the week, several of which originated with press releases. The rest of the publication was filled in with commodity press releases. It’s a typical approach for a thinly-staffed trade magazine.

It was also the approach at my next job as assistant editor at a weekly community newspaper, the long-defunct Canoga Park Chronicle. There were two of us in this case: the managing editor and me. Again, we went through scads of press releases. If we found one that warranted coverage in the front of the paper, we made calls, did interviews, and wrote an original story. Be we also found several releases our readers might actually find interesting or useful that were more commodity in nature. With these, all we had time to do was give them a quick edit, and in they went. It was that or a bunch of white space around the display ads.

Let’s review: A story about a new initiative from a city councilman’s office would be treated as a story to be covered. But an announcement about the upcoming veteran’s Day parade scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on Sherman Way got the quick edit and not another thought. We didn’t have time to fact-check the start time or parade route and trusted that the organization sending us the release knew those facts.

In the everyone’s-a-publisher world, journalists will face more pressure to verify the source of press releases, since hoaxes can be perpetrated as a sting (as Churnalism did), maliciously or just for kicks. It is also incumbent on the PR profession to innovate means by which legitimate releases can be certified, and the sooner the better.

But to suggest that there’s something wrong with the relationship between PR—the people who tell the stories of their clients and organizations—and journalists—who share those stories with their readers—is nothing short of naieve. It’s worth pointing out the number of journalists who have been cut loose and have found employment in public relations. Presumably, they’re bringing journalistic sensibilities to their press release assignments.

The folks at Churnalism.com need to pay attention to Singleton, who asks, “Wouldn’t a news site do better to take (a commodity) story from the newswire put it in the house style and publish it speedily online, and then dedicate as many resources as possible towards the exclusives?”

Exactly.