Low Pan
17th December 2010, 02:04 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/article_c5817480-0a05-11e0-a58e-0017a4a78c22.html
Was reporter wrong to question politician outside his church?
After failing to gain access to Nevada Governor-elect Brian Sandoval, a reporter for the Reno News & Review went to his church and tried to question him outside after the service.
The newspaper reported in an editorial Thursday that a spokeswoman for Sandoval called to express indignation. The editorial states:
Bothering the soon-to-be governor after church, outside the building -- not during the service, mind you -- was somehow morally repugnant to her.
Well, how 'bout that?
There's a journalistic axiom that says ethical journalists generally don't talk about someone without talking to them. It's an ethic that public relations experts know well: If a reporter calls to interview your client, you can often avoid uncertain coverage by stalling the reporter. Out of fairness, the reporter may not write a story until he or she gets a quote from the subject of the story. If the public relations professional can stall long enough by not responding to the reporter -- often without informing the subject of the reporter's interest -- the reporter will move on because he or she has other deadlines to meet. The public relations gatekeeper considers the job well done if the public is not informed and no story is written.
And later, the editorial makes this case:
Now, suppose the reporter does what good reporters do and finds his or her subject in a public place and asks the questions that the public relations professional has tried to block and the politician has tried to avoid. The public relations professional later calls and demands that the newspaper not go to particular public places to ask their client questions. If the newspaper agrees not to go to those public places -- without any agreement for access for legitimate questions -- the public remains uninformed.
Once again, here's how the scam works: If the p.r. professional blocks normal channels of access, and the newspaper agrees to forgo other channels, the p.r. professional gets to craft the stories the public reads by choosing when to grant access.
It's a game. The newspaper plays nice and may get access when it suits the gatekeeper. There is really only one loser in this game, which is played out every day in every state in the country: the public.
Was reporter wrong to question politician outside his church?
After failing to gain access to Nevada Governor-elect Brian Sandoval, a reporter for the Reno News & Review went to his church and tried to question him outside after the service.
The newspaper reported in an editorial Thursday that a spokeswoman for Sandoval called to express indignation. The editorial states:
Bothering the soon-to-be governor after church, outside the building -- not during the service, mind you -- was somehow morally repugnant to her.
Well, how 'bout that?
There's a journalistic axiom that says ethical journalists generally don't talk about someone without talking to them. It's an ethic that public relations experts know well: If a reporter calls to interview your client, you can often avoid uncertain coverage by stalling the reporter. Out of fairness, the reporter may not write a story until he or she gets a quote from the subject of the story. If the public relations professional can stall long enough by not responding to the reporter -- often without informing the subject of the reporter's interest -- the reporter will move on because he or she has other deadlines to meet. The public relations gatekeeper considers the job well done if the public is not informed and no story is written.
And later, the editorial makes this case:
Now, suppose the reporter does what good reporters do and finds his or her subject in a public place and asks the questions that the public relations professional has tried to block and the politician has tried to avoid. The public relations professional later calls and demands that the newspaper not go to particular public places to ask their client questions. If the newspaper agrees not to go to those public places -- without any agreement for access for legitimate questions -- the public remains uninformed.
Once again, here's how the scam works: If the p.r. professional blocks normal channels of access, and the newspaper agrees to forgo other channels, the p.r. professional gets to craft the stories the public reads by choosing when to grant access.
It's a game. The newspaper plays nice and may get access when it suits the gatekeeper. There is really only one loser in this game, which is played out every day in every state in the country: the public.