Journalist vs. Publicist

by jill ~ December 4, 2008

The ongoing battle between us rages on.

I just saw this story in PR Week about Dan Abram’s new consulting firm, Abrams Research, that will employ working members of the press to advise clients on how to best convey messages to the press.

This is a fascinating concept and has already created a significant amount of controversy from the media industry… check out this New York Magazine commentary and this Gawker posting.

Getting the inside track from a top reporter is obviously a dream idea to many… but current journalists advising companies on how to shape and deliver their messages?  This raises a huge red flag for me.  What about unbiased reporting?  As stated in the PR Week article:

“What arose was an ethical issue. Media watchers wondered whether or not a working journalist, who writes for newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, could provide counsel, accept compensation, and continue to produce fair and balanced work.

The Times and the Journal - sources of many of today’s top journalists - told New York magazine that their reporters would not be permitted to provide counsel.

But Abrams has repeatedly spoken out and tried to clarify the firm’s stance on conflicts of interest. He says a number of freelance journalists, former reporters, and bloggers would make up his new network, as well as non-conflicted working journalists.”

There are already a lot of current working PR people who were former journalists.  It’s the nature of the business - reporters eventually want to make more money and clients can benefit from working with someone who is a good writer and has the “inside track,” as it were, into the mind of the media.  No problem.  So, maybe a better scenario would be to start a PR or consulting firm that only employs former journalists.  This might be a good business idea.