
I've been reflecting more than usual on the state of journalism
in the UK. This is a subject I find myself returning to
frequently, but as a former journalist I'm wary of sounding like a
"wasn't like this in my day" merchant.
Leaving journalism to join a PR agency, 10 years ago, my
perspective changed forever.
The first thing that hit me was the number of journalists that
were asking for PR people to "write around 500 words in answer to
the following questions for a feature I am writing."
I'm sorry, a feature you are writing? A feature
you're compiling but actually based on the work of others,
surely..?
When I was a news reporter, it was common practice to read rival
newspapers and follow up on stories they had broken, adding our own
additional reporting to give things a new twist. The
commonly-used line back then was "I'm busy forging my career!"
How we laughed.
But just lately, and this is something I'm convinced is linked
to the convergence of journalism and blogging, it seems to be
increasingly common for a story that appears on one site to be
replicated almost immediately by several others.
Which means interesting stories, pithy remarks and insightful
comments all get widely dispersed. But along with this editorial
diaspora you also get misinterpretations, errors and
inaccuracies.
Why? Because of the dangerous assumption that if a story has
appeared in print somewhere then it must be true - it's fair game
for copying.
There are too many examples to include here of stories I've seen
written by people who would like to be thought of as serious
journalists where there has been no basic fact checking, no second
sourcing (if you don't know what that is you're not a journalist -
I don't care what it says on your business card) and no attempt to
introduce balance by including comments from all the parties within
a story.
I checked to see what some of the leading lights of the world of
journalism have to say on the matter. Here's the Basics of
Reporting and Writing, according to Reuters:
"Accuracy must never be sacrificed for speed. If we lose our
reputation for accuracy we lose everything. We reinforce to readers
our commitment to accuracy by being totally honest about rectifying
errors - promptly and openly. Double-check facts, figures, names,
dates and spellings. Watch for typographical errors. Make sure the
story is fair and balanced, and presented in such a way that it
will be seen to be fair and balanced.
"Accuracy is also more than just getting the facts right - it is
getting the right facts, and backing up our interpretation of the
facts with authoritative and unimpeachable sourcing."
I think it would be a hard case to argue that all journalists
adhere (or even aspire) to such ideals.
PR people come in for a lot of stick from grumpy journalists.
This is not my attempt to even the score. There's plenty of shoddy
behaviour on both sides of the supposed divide between hacks and
flacks, and nothing will be gained by me adding to the pointless
mud-slinging.
But I do think there needs to be a reflection on the issue of
professional standards in journalism as well as in PR. After all,
long gone are the days when editors would have clawed their way up
the career ladder from cub reporter, attending NUJ-approved
training courses and being scrutinised along the way. I fear not
much has been done to replace that kind of induction into the
responsibilities that come with being a member of the fourth
estate.
And yes, before anyone asks, I agree something could also be
done to make the PR industry more in tune with the working needs of
journalists. Or looked at another way... journalists have the PR
industry they deserve. Long may that continue.
Sean F