Doubtless following on from last week's hack attack on a prominent British PR network, the Independent has tried to "balance the news" by asking public relations executives what they think about journalists.

Here's Julia Hobsbawn, founder of the controversial Editorial Intelligence network, hitting back:

"I'm always horrified if journalists regard themselves as morally superior to PRs. The bane of a PR's life is a journalist who insists that in order to be a "good" journalist they must ward off "bad" PR. The truth is we are all in the same business, but with differences that must be respected on both sides."

There's more from Julian Henry ("The only annoying thing is when journalists have a pre-conceived notion that a PR man is the devil, and we are not worthy of sitting at the same table as them") and Mark Borkowski ("there is a real lack of respect for the craft of PR"). Understandable complaints that journalists never buy dinner or demand freebie are aired again, alongside concerns about editors dropping stories or being economical with the truth when dealing with PRs. Max Clifford, arguably Britain's best-known PR, chips in with an amusing line: "Journalists are becoming increasingly dishonest - PRs always have been."

Still, there is plenty that journalists can learn from some of these complaints. Tony Langham, chief executive of Lansons Communications, has a go at the press at large, and it is difficult to disagree with his findings:

"Top of the list is the appalling coverage of science and medicine, which varies between unnecessarily scaring people to giving others false hope. Then there's the pack mentality, most evident in the gleeful witchhunts of government ministers. Or those times when hypocrisy and moral indignation collide - keeping quiet about Kate Moss's habits for years and then deciding she's fair game, as if it's news."

And also Jon McLeod, Chairman of Weber Shandwick UK Public Affairs and chief press officer for the Bar Council, on a routine all-too-common in the newspapers today:

"My bugbear is what I call the probe device: NGO makes spurious and unfounded allegation against corporate client. Journalist picks it up and calls official body, eg Serious Fraud Office, to ask whether they will investigate. SFO says, "We will look into it", and, bingo, you have the headline "SFO probe into company X over Y allegations". Page lead for two to three days. SFO subsequently says there is no case to answer. The latter naturally makes no headlines. Result: client's reputation unfairly tarnished with little or no prospect of redress. And it never was a story in the first place."

Printer friendly version
Email this article to a friend

Related articles:

• Behind The Statistics
• US Online Journalists Get Protection
• Outside The Zone
• Protecting Your Sources
• Podcasts & The Law