Charles on… anything that comes along

So, situation. You are a freelance journalist, and you write for (among others) Publication A and Publication B.

You get in touch with Company C, about an event it’s holding. “Oh, we’d love to talk to you for Publication A,” they say. “But not if you’re going to write for Publication B. We don’t talk to Publication B.”

Pointing out that the things you write for Publications A and B are almost exactly the same has no effect. Pub A is OK; Pub B is not. If you might write for B, you are persona non grata.

You are only welcome if you promise that you will not use what you learn in any articles for Publication B.

Question: do you accept those terms and go along? Journalists, consider this closely. Remember, you’re freelance - so this is about putting bread on the table, or keeping the mortgage wolf from the door.

My response: turn down Company C’s demand. The reasons are as follows.

First, and most important we’re in a multi-outlet world. Exclusives are fleeting, or hard to hold on to (Google News rewards the most recently updated site, not the one that broke the story); quotes are a commodity. As soon as something’s published, it can be up on a website within minutes, and on paper in hours. It’s true that “facts are sacred, comment is free” (as in: don’t mess with facts, but when you get to comment, say what you like); but comment is what people pay the big bucks for. We’re drowning in facts. What is needed is analysis and context.

So for Company C to pretend that anything said to any journalist won’t be available within moments to the hated Publication B is simply deluded. There are news wires, there are RSS feeds, there are ordinary punters who have an opinion which you can cull from blogs. Company C is not exactly operating under a bushel - it’s going to put out its own press materials on the web. Any executive quoted by some publication can be re-quoted (within fair use) for any piece. So the raw material of journalism is all there regardless.

Second, it smacks of Hollywood-style attempts to control the press - the sort of thing where the magazine has to give copy approval for the interview with the Big Star - and I dislike that, a lot. What’s more, we’re talking about technology here, not an individual who can be shielded from the press by darkened windows, and who can choose to speak or not speak. Big glossy magazines might need to kowtow to get the interview and front-cover shot with Brad Pitt or Jennifer Aniston, and so might give in to a policy like this. But a company selling products can’t command the same exclusivity.

Third, it treats journalism as simply an extension of marketing and advertising, and I really dislike that. To quote another news saying, “News is what someone somewhere wants suppressed. All the rest is advertising.”

The reality is that as a journalist you’ll still be able to write for both Publication A and Publication B if you don’t go along with these terms. (You can always call up the rivals of Company C, and analysts; in many ways they’re a better source.) And both publications will pay you (hopefully).

What’s more, you’ll be able to say you’ve upheld your ethics. You’re not losing; you’re winning. Who’s losing? Arguably, Company C, which spites its Publication A face by cutting off its Publication B nose. Foolish, but then some people are.

But I’d be interested to hear what other journalists - especially freelances - think of this. And whether they’ve had to face it too. Of course, as usual, everyone is welcome to comment. (Just a reminder: you don’t have to give your real name or email.)

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Oh, and don't tell anyone till tomorrow, but that's the last NDA I'll sign (12 December 2005; score: 41.64%)
• Newspapers' resistance to change 'borders on pathological' (17 March 2005; score: 30.63%)
• The 9 rules of journalism.. just marvellous (13 June 2007; score: 30.37%)

• Microsoft Single-Play DVD was a hoax (but whose?)
  The reason nobody called this sooner was obviously because they wanted to believe that Microsoft would take leave of its senses in this way, and nobody checked the original. The blogosphere, an echo chamber? Hellooooo… Anyway. Of course, it’s only a short step from the MPAA’s dream of the DIVX single-play format to this, so maybe that explains how a fair number of people were prepared to fulminate about it.
  Bigger question now: will those who raged about this now cough to getting caught out? At least Good Morning Silicon Valley has the integrity to fess up. (And their headlines are always brilliant.) Now, everyone else, get in line..

  (Seen at Museum of Hoaxes)

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Tony Glover, white courtesy cluephone please... (11 October 2005; score: 36.07%)
• Is Sony's rootkit going to mess up Blu-Ray?, and more on Microsoft 'Live' (10 November 2005; score: 28.58%)
• Apple's video iPod comes nearer... at least online (22 July 2005; score: 27.65%)