Why journalists should mind their Ps and Qs and start working with public relations professionals

Last week, PRmoment asked journalists what annoys them about PROs (see here). This week it is the turn of PROs to get their own back, while suggesting ways of working that can improve any difficult relationships with journalists. After all, there is no point in increasing any tension between the two professions that rely upon each other. As Yvonne McQueen, freelance PR consultant, says: “I think everyone appreciates just how difficult business is at the moment, and it’s perhaps not useful to knock each other too much, as journalists and PROs need each other”.

Although many PR people were once journalists and so have an understanding of the stresses of working to press deadlines and appeasing irate editors, McQueen suggests that it may be useful if PROs and writers could spend a week doing each other’s jobs just so that each could experience the pressures and problems of life on the other side. She also offers advice to journalists, such as posting synopses online with contact details and achievable deadlines, although she adds: “I know that this is not always felt to be a good idea as feature ideas can be snatched by that magazine’s competitors. So if that’s not a runner, then perhaps having a distribution of PR people to whom journalists regularly email synopses is the next best thing. It’s my experience that many magazines ask PROs to phone in for synopses, but we’re only too well aware of the pressures under which journalists work, and can’t really imagine they’d want endless phone calls every day.” Although no journalist wants to be told how to do their job by a PRO, it is still worth politely mentioning that having as much information as possible in advance is always welcome.

It is in journalists’ interests to speak to the people they need for their articles, so it is a good idea to emphasise that clients are not always available at the drop of a hat. McQueen says, “As an example I’ve sometimes been told to call about a forthcoming feature synopsis at a certain time, have chased and chased – only to find the synopsis is eventually sent through with a deadline of 24 hours. While I can turn things round very quickly, and will happily work of an evening to produce something, my clients are often unable to sign off submissions in a few hours due to their workloads.”

Last, but not least, in McQueen‘s list of requests for journalists, is her demand for some type of response, even if it‘s negative: “Please, please – if we email journalists requesting a relevant synopsis, it would be useful to hear back! Emailing removes the potential hassle of endless phone calls from PROs, so if a journalist makes a promise, they should deliver!”

No one expects journalists to fawn over PROs, but there is no excuse for being plain rude. Juliet Bernard, owner of Bluebear PR which specialises in digital and ethical clients, wonders why some journalists even bother to answer the phone, when all they do is belittle the PRO on the other end. She adds: “When we call a journalist we have researched the title and are contacting them with something we hope will be appropriate. A simple ‘no thank you’ would be fine.” Bernard says that she is particularly irked by the “You do realise how many releases I get sent?” response. She says: “I have often wanted to reply ‘Yes I do know how important you think you are and thank you for explaining it to me.” Bernard believes that it is generally journalists who work on the national titles who can be the most difficult, but is at pains to point out that there are also really wonderful writers who “work with you and who you can bounce ideas off“, although she adds that these are mainly freelancers.

Bernard’s tip for dealing with rude journalists is to apologise if a story isn’t what they are looking for, and then ask when they will have a few minutes available to hear about a client, or if they would prefer to be taken off the target list. It is always a good idea to find out exactly what the journalist needs and how they like information presented to them, so that they only receive stories that are highly targeted and eminently usable.

A senior media relations professional in financial services outlines six journalist behaviours that should be banned:

1. Vagueness – phoning up and saying "I spoke to someone in your organisation, but I didn't note their name". This is unforgivable. If a journalist is that sloppy, how can they rely on their notes about the person they spoke to? If you think about the US model of journalism, with everything double sourced and quotes attributed by name in most cases, you can't help thinking that the fact-checking desk of the New York Times or Washington Post wouldn't even recognise it as journalism.

2. Lack of realism about the importance of media to an organisation. Calling at 5.00pm asking for a comment from the CEO on something of relatively marginal importance to the company is not going to work often. The CEO has a raft of responsibilities and time commitments. I'll haul them out of a meeting for something that really matters, but not to fill space.

3. Lack of accuracy in reproduction of figures. Again the US model has more rigour. The number of times I have to correct relatively minor, but sloppy errors is not impressive.

4. Trying to be Woodward and Bernstein all the time. If a journalist goes to page 150 of a company's annual report and finds two numbers which they decide are significant, they should think about why it was that the auditors and regulators didn't consider them to be significant. I'm not saying not to probe (all companies are not honest), but this means also being prepared to listen to a detailed and technical explanation as to why a theory is wrong. This is the financial journalism equivalent of the crimes that home news reporters perpetrate against statistics on a daily basis.

5. Passing the buck. A good journalist should accept responsibility when they get something wrong. If the subs were really guilty of introducing every error for which they are blamed, they'd all have been sacked long ago as more of a hazard than a benefit.

6. Asking at the end of a phone call if there's anything else going on that they should know about. Has any press officer ever accidentally said "Yes, we're sacking our CEO tomorrow"? And if it's an attempt to get me to explain what other journalists are asking, then the writer should think about how they’d react if I gave their stories to the competition.