I believe an amicable working relationship between journalists and PR representatives is best for both sides. I am sure they would agree, but from my experiences so far, I doubt they define “amicable working relationship” in the same way I do.

PR reps are concerned with information management, so are journalists. I think it goes almost without saying PRs do not like bad news to get out. Many would argue journalists only want bad news to get out, but I would argue this isn’t always true. But, of course, there isn’t much mileage in telling everyone “all’s well” because they already know that.

What PRs do to prevent bad news getting out is up to them, but on the incredibly small offchance that anyone reading this blog works in PR, may I offer the following advice:
1. Do not lie
2. Do not tell the journalist how to do their job
Both these things will definitely piss off the journalist at the other end of the phone.

As a clarification to point 1, especially don’t lie inexpertly. It makes you look even more ridiculous. This is a shout out to the PR girl working for a major communications company, who told me she hadn’t received my phone message, only to include in her response to my e-mail the answer to a question I had asked in the phone message and NOT in the e-mail.

This wasn’t a deliberate test to catch her out, but I noticed it immediately. And it made me suspect everything else she was saying. If journalists know you are lying to them, they are far more likely to give you a bad time.
And to put it simply, what the fuck are you doing lying in the first place? If and when you are found out, it will only make you look worse in the end.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who do lie and never get found out. And beyond “well that sucks” I don’t have much to add. But it doesn’t do much for the cause of accurate and impartial journalism if we’re basing it on lies and then getting blamed for the inaccuracies. So in effect, PRs who lie are threatening democracy by undermining the free press, the watchdog of our freedoms… (etc etc ;) )

Being serious again for a second. And returning to point two. If a story is good, the journalist will not abandon it just because you think you have resolved the situation. And they will especially not abandon it if they know more about it than you do and your remedial action has not yet been put in place. That your organisation made a mistake is still a story. If your reaction to this mistake is suitably amazing then the story improves and you may come out of this looking better than you did when you went in.

If your reaction is entirely inadequate then that also improves the story. Either way, the journalist “wins”. But your taking action doesn’t automatically mean the journalist doesn’t have a story. In some cases it may, but in my experience, your reaction is part of the story. That’s how we tell them, with balance. To the girl working for a major retail corporation who told me: “I was hoping you wouldn’t have a story now that we have a satisfied customer”, I say: “How can you tell he’s satisfied by your compensation when he hasn’t even received it yet?”

Furthermore, I had spoken to the customer in question and from what he’d already said, I very much doubted he would be satisfied by what they were offering. He wasn’t. We ran the story.

Incidentally, aforesaid major retail corporation also tried to say we could only quote them as “spokesperson”. In plain English: what the hell? But that’s a rant for another time. See above.