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