Some PRs are just plain nasty
We asked Fleet Street Fox for her take on the current state of PR and media relations. Boy, did we get it.
Public relations types are always quick to sniff which way the wind is blowing, which is perhaps why in the past few years they’ve started treating journalists like dirt.
Some always have. But since journalism was, as a trade, marched to the public pillory by self-serving politicians and half-blind lawyers, PR experts have exploited it to bully, lie, threaten and control.
Now, I don’t complain that journalists are hated; if we were loved we’d be doing it wrong. PRs and hacks share a mutual discomfort that naturally arises from sometimes being at loggerheads.
It’s normal for spokesmen to say ‘it’s not my job to answer your questions’, ask when the deadline is and ignore it, or issue statements so blatantly untrue they sound like Comical Ali denying the Allies are at the gates of Baghdad.
There are some who are just plain nasty; but I’ve always thought that was a fault in their medication rather than a default position for your whole trade.
Yet in the 20-odd years I’ve been a journalist I’ve seen the arm’s-length distrust that is only natural between us turn into actual hate. PRs have ceased to treat us as human.
The other day a friend of mine rang a football PR to say he had a story about a player and wanted to check it for both accuracy and comment. The response was: ‘We’re not helping you, we’ll just sue you if it’s wrong.’
Not long ago a hack working on an innocuous TV talent show story was told by the PR that if it ran they would pull their paper from every press release, statement and interview opportunity. The editor was realistic, and dropped the story in return for continued access.
Then there was a government press officer who insisted I and everyone in my industry always lied and she would never deal with any of us. When I told her the taxpayer money she earned was a bit of a waste, she said it was her job to ‘talk to people – not you’.
Perhaps that just seems bullish to you – but trust me, it happens every day, on every tale from local yarns all the way up to Downing Street, and it didn’t use to.
Police won’t confirm names of suspects, public officials have been jailed for talking to journalists despite not taking any money from them, and libel lawyers think it’s Christmas.
In times of recession and falling circulation, budgets shrink. There are many papers which are one big libel case away from closure. I was threatened six months ago with being personally sued and losing my home – something which has always been a possibility but never mentioned before.
With the exception of corporations, journalists are probably the only people who don’t have PRs of their own. We’re not allowed to defend ourselves – reporters cannot risk a personal opinion in case they become the story.
As a result everyone – and I include journalists in this – has forgotten that we are people too.
We use the council services, we rely on the police, schools and hospitals, we vote, just like everyone else.
We have the added bonus of being able to get our questions answered occasionally, and the extra risk of being shot at now and again.
It’s been our turn to take the flak and we can take it. But that needs to be over now, and it would be nice if PRs and journalists could get back to not trusting each other like we used to.
What do you think of Fleet Street Fox’s take on things? Is she right? Let us know in the comments below.
Fleet Street Fox is journalist and author. She writes for the Daily Mirror Online as well as her own website fleet street fox.
I think the confrontation cuts both ways. There’s good and bad on both sides, with a common denominator – ever-receding resources.
Not so long ago I rang a reporter on a national to politely request they consider correcting a fictitious story that they lifted from a trade pub – which had already corrected it. I got bounced to his boss. His tactic was to shout at me and point out that he ‘played golf with my CEO’. I offered to put him through for a chat, but explained I was trying to resolve the situation so we didn’t have to repeat the previous month’s experience. It was less than four weeks since his paper had decided to settle and pay costs over another poor article by the same reporter. I explained between his pauses for breath that I was trying to avoid a repeat performance for everyone. Not all of us want a fight.
I think it is interesting that there obviously are ‘horror’ stories from both sides but it’s the ones that are negative about PRs that come up. I suppose that has something to do with journalists being gatekeepers to published reporting.
What do you think?
I have been on both sides of the fence and believe that PR folks have as many horror stories about journos. The difference is that PRs tend to keep them quiet as they don’t want to run the risk of burning bridges/contacts for future stories.
Why do you think it’s okay for journalists to do it then? Do they not risk burning bridges?
Perhaps the events that inspired the Leveson enquiry have made PRs feel more confident saying what they always thought.
On a more thoughtful note, I wonder if it is to do with resources being pressed on both sides. We don’t have as much time to talk to journalists, and I certainly am finding that the journalists I do speak to are less experienced and have less specialized knowledge. It can get frustrating and it helps to remember that in any profession there are stars and incompetent folk alike.
I think you’re right about there being good and bad in any profession.
How would you say the Leveson Inquiry has made PRs more confident?
It’s the same in magazines.
The PR and their client refuse to take out adverts unless it comes with free editorial. So journalists have to write what’s essentially free advertorials to ensure sales can get the ad.
Sure, there’s always been some of that but now it’s getting worse with sales and editorial arguing because the advertiser was two, three, four or more free bits of advertorial over the next few issues or they go to another publication that will.
Because the mags are increasingly full of ad fluff the readers drift away and circulation drops and there’s even more pressure to keep advertisers happy. And because circulation drops so do the editorial budgets so there’s less money to spend on good writing and staff have to work longer and do more with less.
Thanks for your comment. Do you think the commercial pressure on magazines is more of a B2B issue or a consumer problem as well?