Welcome to MyRagan Forum. Browse through any forum, sign in or register here and you'll be on your way to creating your own discussions and posting replies for the whole community to see :D
I visited angryjournalist.com to see what reporters are saying about PR folks. (They can post anonymously, which opens the floodgates).
Here's a good one:
"I can’t stand PR people. I no longer give them courtesy. Yesterday I didn’t get a straight answer from a politician, so I asked the question again, and the PR guy says, “That’s already been asked.” I just snapped and told him to butt out - even though its his job. I’m sick of them trying to bully us… so I just bully back."
Sure, they hate us...until they need us. Like many of you, I've worked both sides now that I'm on this one, could just as well bitch about lazy reporters who want a story handed to them on a plate, complete with interview subjects' names and numbers for the human interest side. Geez!
Journalists are objective and adversarial. Chicago columnist Mike Royko used to say that journalists are paid low wages to keep them cynical.
PR people are subjective advocates. They're skilled communicators paid to put the forth the case for their client, whether in business, government, the church, or the professions.
As long as we have both - advocates and adversaries - we'll be fine, because we'll have a fight. And as Larry Ragan, the founder of this site's host company, used to say: "Fighting is the way Americans solve their problems."
I was a reporter in a different life. I think most journalists get frustrated with PR people because PR people are always there. Journalists do not need PR people. They don't want to talk to you. They want to talk to the people you represent. And yet, all they get is you. I don't really think it's personal (well, maybe for some it is). They just don't want to talk to the middle man with the well crafted message. They want the real thing.
I have excellent relations with many reporters. Some of them even send me information about jobs I might want to apply for. Even when I between jobs I have lunches with some reporters. I think many of the problems reporters have with PR people is due to the restrictions the top people in our company put on us. I was lucky to work for a company that allowed me to talk on the record and that helps build good relations. I have many reporters send me studies and quotations they got just so we could see if we wanted to comment on it.
Patrick Williams said it best. I can't help but like any post that refers to Mike Royko may he rest in peace at the old Billy Goat. I think he's still there with Slats Grobnick.
As the newspaper industry implodes and trained journalists become fewer, this is only going to get worse. The numbers of journalists who have detailed knowledge of the subjects they cover are also shrinking, to be supplanted by bloggers who often have their own biased dog in the fight.
That's going to make our jobs as communicators tougher, educating inexpert reporters, balancing the point-of-view nature of blogs, and filling information holes that dwindling reporting resources have left.
You might say, well, good, we won't have to fight so much with cynical reporters. But as someone who was a longtime reporter before stepping over to the communications side of the fence, I will say that I knew few truly cynical reporters -- combative, demanding, skeptical, yes, but mostly objective.
So I worry more about the factual and objective flimsiness of the blogosphere that is replacing them.
I speak to many reporters who tell me they are bombarded by phone calls and emails from children hired by PR firms who have no idea what the reporters are interested in, what their publications cover, or even what they themselves are pitching.
What seriously irritates me about that is that it makes it hard for people like me -- who actually take the time to do that kind of homework -- to get through to reporters.
First off, my favorite reporter (15 years of hard news reporting) will tell you that reporters are subjective, not objective. There is not such thing as objectivity. The mere inclusion or exclusion of one fact over another is subjectivity. Ask her, she'll tell you.
Second, I never have problems working with the media. Just listen to what they want and pitch a strong story. Help set up the interview then get the hell out of the way. The PR person is never the story, nor should they be. And they shouldn't expect reporters to treat them any other way.
Me personally, I feed stories to my favorite reporter every day... she has not choice to listen to me - she married me. Now that's stranged bed mates indeed!
ColdPizza wrote:
I was a reporter in a different life. I think most journalists get frustrated with PR people because PR people are always there. Journalists do not need PR people. They don't want to talk to you. They want to talk to the people you represent. And yet, all they get is you. I don't really think it's personal (well, maybe for some it is). They just don't want to talk to the middle man with the well crafted message. They want the real thing.
Good point, Robb. Journalists are subjective, but when I read Patrick's comments, I think he described the ideal, where the journalist should at least try to be objective, where PR folks clearly have a mandate to be advocates. True PR pros know how to be good advocates without losing their authenticity.
As for ColdPizza's comment, he certainly captured the mindset of many reporters. Unfortunately, I've seen too many of my own words lifted verbatim and under a journalist's by-line to believe they don't need us. I've also spent more than a few days on the hotseat when as a spokesperson, I was the one they wanted to speak to. In short, good PR people are the real thing.
Jcadmus, though struck a nerve when referring to the large numbers of entry level, low billing rate, PR types that deluge reporters with nonsense.
In the post that started this conversation, the PR guy said, "...so I asked the question again." Why didn't he rephrase his inquiry to try to elicit a different response? Simply repeating a question would aggravate anyone, especially a politician who was trying not to answer it directly.
I agree with jcadmus: We (as an industry) don't help ourselves. I hear it over and over again from the horses' mouths: Reporters deal with far too many PR people who waste their time, and that has made them irritable and impatient. The best thing we can do is set ourselves apart by showing that we know what the reporter covers, responding to his or her needs quickly and accurately, and respecting deadlines.
Ultimately though, smart reporters know they need smart PR people.
They're not going to get that interview with a c-suite executive, unless they demonstrate they understand our business and our industry, and can write thoughtfully about them. Access is earned, and I'm the keymaster.
On the other hand, I know I can't get what I want from them (coverage) unless I give them what they want (access and a story).
Not sure I agree that reporters need PR people. They want answers and as long as we provide them what they need to do their jobs, they'll be friends.
But if we don't - and this is something PR people often forget when they stonewall a reporter - a good writer will find the answers somewhere else. And those might not be the answers we like.
At least if you're talking to the reporter you have a chance to make your case. Once you blow them off, you're company is crossing its fingers.
