Stupid media tricks: Rinse, repeat
Barely a day goes by that I don’t receive an ill-fated, irrelevant or heavy-handed story pitch in my inbox. Someone somewhere thought it wise to add my name to press release distribution lists nationwide.
It’s maddening — despite usually admirable spam filters.
I cover Reno, Nevada and surrounding areas. I cover what PR folks, especially of the government variety, often won’t convey without questions and prompting that engender squirmy contortions, as opposed to the free flow of information.
In short, what my news website, This Is Reno, does is usually not a good fit for the pitches we receive.
More correct: The pitches I get are increasingly irrelevant to TIR reporting because, when a legit news outlet attempts to report organically arisen news — as opposed to the PR-driven stories that, unfortunately, dominate headlines in our local market — the role of public relations is more suitable for information sharing.
But that’s not what happens.
PR’s role in practice is contrary to what the industry at one point supposedly aspired to: “The two-way symmetrical model of public relations may provide what is not only an ethical and socially responsible approach to public relations, but also an effective one” (Childers, 1989).
Despite the decades-long recommendation Childers mentioned, based on Grunig and Turk’s work, most in the industry, in actuality, want and often mandate a one-way flow of information — from them and their clients to the media.
Asking questions is frequently deemed an affront to their noble work.
How that plays out:
- Incoming pitch, usually framed as an “opportunity” for us, despite our not inviting such an engagement: “Hey Bob, We are thrilled to announce that…”
- Me: “Thank you for contacting us. As a small news operation, we find these pitches are better suited for our press release portal…”
- Pitchman, a week later: “Hey, I never heard back from you. Can I connect you with…?”
- Me: Click “Block [sender’s name]”; click “Add to spam.”
