Via Micro Persuasion, here's a little cautionary tale about spilling the corporate beans on your blog. (I say "little" because the so-called scoop in question wasn't that big a deal.)

Thanks to PR Watch for noticing this Rocky Mountain News column bemoaning the self-serving promotion of network programming on local TV newscasts. You know, like when your ABC affiliate does a profile of a local woman who's on The Bachelor, and so forth. The column is well-written, but misdiagnoses the problem as one of disclosure:

I think ... journalists at local outlets should give their news judgment an extreme makeover and drop most entertainment news tie- ins. They're not newsworthy, unless you want your newscast to look like a prime-time show - which is clearly the trend, I know, but it still makes me ill.

In any case, if the local TV outlets insist on broadcasting "news" about entertainment programming, they should inform viewers when they have a financial interest in the success of the show mentioned.

That's not the issue; everyone watching these shows knows that the purpose is self-promotion.

In fact, most "stories" like this appear during the late news -- immediately after the network program has aired. Such stories are heavily promoted by the station, because the reality is that such coverage helps the ratings of the newscast -- not the other way around.

Which points to the real problem here: People are more interested in entertainment news than in news about what's going on in the world. And that's not the fault of local news stations; they have only reluctantly jumped on this bandwagon in a struggle to maintain market share.

So...let's get off their backs this time.

In the wake of the Armstrong Williams scandal and other concerns about pay for placement in the news media, the FCC has added a page to its Web site outlining rules against payola.

"What is a Journalist?" -- hilarious, insightful blog entry by comedian Harry Shearer.

Here are some nice tips from a technology journalist on getting PR for your company.

Exxon Mobil is throwing cold water on global warming concerns at a time when its competitors, principally BP and Royal Dutch Shell, are trying to make nice with environmentalists on the topic. Is it a smart, no-nonsense business strategy or another PR blunder from the company that brought us Valdez?

The Wall Street Journal weighed in earlier this week with a story that states: "A growing chorus of critics says Exxon's strategy is short-sighted...Most scientists take an approach to global warming that is fundamentally different from Exxon's."

The same day The Journal published its story, Exxon announced that it had hired Philip Cooney, a former White House aide who softened scientific warnings about global warming in government documents. Cooney "quit two days after leaked documents disclosed the extent to which he had neutered the conclusions of government scientists," The Times of London reports.

The U.S. green movement has consistently generated only lukewarm public support compared to its European counterparts. So Exxon may be playing its cards right -- if a bit cynically. Perhaps it's not surprising that the most green-friendly oil companies are based abroad, where environmentalists have more clout.

There is some evidence the PR tide may be turning here, however. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke out for action on global warming earlier this month, stating: "I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now."

We'll see...

From this week's Barron's: "The $82 billion stock-market value of Google tops that of the 12 largest newspaper publishers combined."

Ouch. That's a low blow, boys. The article does go on to argue that newspaper stocks are undervalued, and specifically recommends Gannett, Tribune, and Knight Ridder. Personally, I think I'll just hang on to my Belo stock.

Since 1975, obesity rates among U.S. children have more than doubled -- and more than tripled among kids aged 6 to 11. Lawmakers, consumer groups and class-action attorneys are increasingly laying the blame for this trend on the "deceptive" marketing campaigns of major food companies.

Gradually -- too gradually for their own good -- food companies such as McDonald's and Kraft have recognized the obesity trend as a PR crisis that needs to be addressed head-on, as this week's Adweek details.

Marketing food (or anything else) to children is a touchy subject. As parents know, many advertisers aggressively use the "nag factor" to push product. They want children to bug their parents until the parents break down ("OK, OK, I'll take you to McDonald's if you promise to be quiet!") I've seen marketing presentations where the efficacy of the "nag factor" is quantified in detail.

But we can't lay the blame for our fat kids on food companies and their advertising. It's actually a relatively minor factor in the obesity epidemic. Other, more important trends are involved. For example:

-- With the increase in single-parent homes and homes where both parents work, parents simply aren't preparing nutritional meals for their children.

-- Children are spending far more time with sedentary pursuits such as television, computers and video games.

-- Children don't walk or ride bicycles nearly as much as in the past, due to the evolution of urban and suburban design as well as parents' crime concerns.

These trends are difficult, if not intractable. The easier solution for politicians, therefore, is to scapegoat food companies and their advertising agencies.

Perhaps it's a good thing to restrict advertising directed at children. But in this case, it won't solve the problem. Now that food advertisers have finally realized the importance of PR to their defense, perhaps they will make a stronger case for themselves.