Journalism 101: today, we will be mostly discussing ethics
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: 41.57%)
- Newspapers' resistance to change 'borders on pathological' (17 March 2005; score: 30.58%)
- The 9 rules of journalism.. just marvellous (13 June 2007; score: 30.32%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
October 6th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Yup - I’d do the same, too.
While it’s not happened to me yet, it’s certainly happened to other journalists I know.
October 7th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Yes, I think there’s no choice there, really. Because ieven if you observe the embargo for *today’s* bit, whatever you learn is still in your brain, and at some point you’re going to be writing for Publication B and it will burble up to the top, and then you’re going to use it. Unless Company C is also offering to pay for your lobotomy.
wg
I wanna know who it was!
October 10th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
They’re daft to even try, I reckon. I’ve had “We think it’s more of a Publication A piece, what do you think?”, which seems more grown up about the whole thing. Or a deal to give Publication A the first exclusive peek. That’s all fine. But “Don’t ever put it in B, or no interview” sounds like a childish threat that has to be walked away from.
On the record is on the record. If the quotes appear in both A and B, that’s the way of it. If a PR department wants press coverage (and oh they do, they do), then they can’t control all the journos all the time, even if some appear be a little more malleable than others.
A.
October 15th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
This is like having to sign an NDA, only even more ridiculous. The only sensible answer to tell them shove their press conference and not just because of the restrictions. They are just symptomatic of a larger PR problem at Company C.
Company C is living in a fantasy world. The bigger tech companies get, the more prone they are to delusions. Press conferences are becoming less and less worthwhile because of the amount of choreography that PRs attempt to use in order to preserve the illusion. The usual thing. Ten minutes of questions, if that, and it’s “the CEO’s gotta catch a cab to the airport” routine. You thought you were going to get a chance to ask some questions, but you’re left with the Northern Europe sales manager, who joined last Monday from a drinks vendor.
What would be interesting would to be in the situation where you ring them after the fact, having obtained less than complimentary comment from rivals/analysts/users on behalf of Pub B. They, presumably, are doing a Google to Pub B. So, they won’t answer the questions or return your call (probably the latter). Yet, if that story turns up in Pub A, are they going to turn round and say: “Why didn’t you approach us for comment? We’d have told Pub A”.
October 15th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Chris, I agree with your first two paragraphs.
However on the third one, the question you’d get asked when you ring up for comment is “Who is this story for?” To which one can either be honest and say “Publication B”, or say “Well, I’ll decide when I have the story.” Either way you’ll likely get stalled.
October 17th, 2005 at 10:20 am
I think I phrased the third one badly. I meant that you say it’s for Pub B in the first place, because you know the news editor will go for it, which will make them stall. The news editor at Pub A then says they will take the story as it stands (with the line “Company C did not return calls”). Because the PR then takes a load of cr*p from their client/boss, they ring you to demand why you didn’t contact them for comment because “of course we would have talked to Pub A”. By this point, they will of course have temporarily forgotten about the embargo on Pub B.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Mmm.
Clearly, A = everyone else you write for. And B = The Register.
I think there are journalists around who would have agreed to the terms suggested. They’re collaborating with something that’s bad for the long-term future of their craft, but mildly beneficial to them in the short term. From the journalists’ perspective, it’s a kind of evolved tragedy of the commons, isn’t it?
From the PR’s perspective. . . WG is right about that the imposed requirement to partition your brain. The trouble is: it’s viewable either as
(a) craven and ridiculous, or (b) sinister and manipulative.
I don’t know enough about the client and the agency, but I lean towards (a).
What I can guess about the situation is that there’s a client — a marketing operative — in the background that’s petrified of *any* mention in, or connection with, the Register.
From their perspective, your point about a multi-channel world is redundant: it’s their ass on the line if this particular event ends up being treated (even ever so slightly) negatively in the Register. And in the land of positives and negatives, the Register is like a lens between the sun and dry grass: from a PR perspective, it magnifies trouble extremely efficiently. From a PR/marketing perspective, it also *seems* highly unpredictable (you and I know that perception stems from lack of study, but that’s another issue. . .)
BTW, another of your points is also (quite often) meaningless from the marketer’s perspective — the one about journalism as an extension of marketing. In my experience, that’s what a vast majority of marketers wish, or even think, the world to be like. If it isn’t, they damn well pay their agency to make it that way. A substantial minority get confused and angry when this doesn’t happen.
So: sinister and manipulative? Not really — again, this is a kind of tragedy of the commons thing: fear, misunderstanding, and conformity
resulting in a rigid line that has some unpleasant connotations in terms of freedom of speech etc.
In my experience, among PRs, negative attitudes to the Reg fall into three camps — these people have more variegated attitudes to the Reg…
1) Experienced PRs who would like to deal with the Register for many reasons — including its massive audience. But their clients simply will not let them.
2) A large middle ground who know the Reg’s audience is huge, and would like to find a way of dealing with the site, but can’t be bothered/have too much on/haven’t got the skills, etc. They’re basically grateful that the client doesn’t want any of this stuff. . .
3) A large number of junior PRs seem to have picked up the idea that mimicking their client’s horror signifies an intelligent understanding of media markets.
The upshot is that the Register — probably the UK’s biggest tech site in audience terms — has become the unmentioned elephant sitting at the media relations dinner table. It’s utterly bizarre…
October 17th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Well, Peter, you may think that it’s The Register, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
While you’re on the subject of ethics, Charles, what about freelancers lower down the food chain? What if you’re working for a trade publication and they ask you to write a “commercial feature” which amounts to no more than the dreaded “advertorial”. Wolves at the door and all that, so you agree but ask to not be by-lined. Then the publication put your by-line on the piece? What do you do about that?
- Stop writing for the publication?
- Complain and say you’ll stop writing if they do it again?
- Suck it up and face the fact that you shouldn’t be writing bloody “commerical features” in the first place, miss a rent payment and hope that you can get enough alternative work to carry on?
October 19th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Anonymous… surely writing this feature means that you don’t have to miss a rent payment? So over the next month you can look around.
I’d suggest - though obviously it’s not ironclad - that you say that in future such features should be bylined “Alan Smithee”. (Google him.) Stopping writing is perhaps over the top, because there’ll be someone who’ll replace you. Complaining is sort of the same. What you want is to be anonymous *and* get paid..
I think the tech industry needs its own Alan Smithee. Anyone got a suggestion?
January 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
a certain californian fruity company based can be hard on journalist these days. these scare tactics have also been tried in France by “Company C” and, to say the least, have been ineffective. My only advice : stay independent… ;-).
Regards,
Jurnalist D…
January 12th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Alan Smithee for the tech industry? Hmmm.
Maybe Derek Faltyooser, if you get my meaning.
D. Faltyooser?
Default User?
No?
Fair enough.