PR Professionals vs. Journalists: Overcoming the Dark Side
by Laura Kelley

One of the most common questions we get from people trying to make headway with reporters is, “How do you become friends with the media?” That’s one of the hardest jobs for any marketing and PR professional. If it were as easy as bringing in chocolate covered doughnuts and lattes to our friendly morning news team, we’d have a much easier time of it and the news media would all be obese by now. Alas, the media is cynical and suspicious especially when it comes to PR experts (commonly referred to by journalists as “the dark side” or “flacks”). Take it from someone who knows, because I was one of those cynical, suspicious media personalities. After working with and in the media for years, there are some harsh truths about how the media views the PR World and how to overcome some of the hurdles.

1. The DELETE button is a reporter’s best friend. It gets rid of hundreds of pesky press releases every single day.  Why are journalists so quick to pull the trigger? In a modern newsroom, including the ones I worked in, it wasn’t uncommon for me to come in each morning to see more than 900 unread emails in my Inbox. Each person in the newsroom gets not only his/her personal email, but also every single email and newstip sent to the newsroom. For the media, it’s a safety net so that they don’t miss breaking news, for PR people it’s a curse. Bottom line, if you’re going to send something out, it better be important, it better be timely, and it better really be “news”.   If not, your press release is going to end up in the Cyber Space junkyard.

2. Unless you have world changing news (and by that I mean a cure for cancer, the discovery of Atlantis etc…) the media does not want to talk to you on the phone. How many times have you heard, “I don’t have time to talk, just send me an email?” Are the media being jerks when they say that…maybe sometimes, but that’s usually because you’re the 20^th PR person to harass them that morning. Truth is, they ARE too busy to talk to you. The landscape of being a journalist has changed drastically over the last decade. Today, everyone in the newsroom is required to not only do their normal job, but also to Tweet, to Facebook, to blog, to edit, to shoot, and to voice their own stories in real time and ahead of the competition. Whether it’s television, print, or online journalists, everyone is doing the job of 10 people these days so sometimes they really will get to your email, they’re just under a lot of pressure.  If you respect this and acknowledge it, they’re more likely to respond to you in a positive way.

3. Check the news before you send out a release or make ANY calls. Just because it’s sunny and 80 degrees in Los Angeles does not mean it’s a picnic in Texas too. You would think that checking the local and national news before pitching a story would be a “no- brainer.” You would THINK. I’m brought back to the time I was working in a Denver newsroom during one of the worst tornadoes in the state’s history. As reports of death and destruction were coming in from all over, and as I was trying to put together an hour long special with eight reporters, I received no less than nine phone calls from PR experts trying to pitch me stories that had nothing to do with breaking news. Did I mention that three of these account executives actually lived in Denver? Needless to say I, and everyone else in the newsroom, was less than amused.

4. Reporters and producers have long memories.  Many journalists have a PR Blacklist (I had one) and that goes for both individuals and companies. The old adage, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me,” applies in many newsrooms. Don’t promise a reporter something you can’t deliver especially since most media have already been soured by PR world. If you say you can get someone for an interview be ready to deliver that immediately when asked. Once you send a pitch out, the media might want the interview to take place an hour later. If you can’t make that happen, you and your company could very likely end up on that journalist’s list of PR professionals never to trust. On the flip slide, if you can deliver your story promise, your relationship has been built; that reporter will start coming to you when they need resources especially if you deliver for them and the station/publication consistently.

Bottom line in all of this is that it takes time to build relationships with the media, but once you’ve done it, it’s the most valuable asset you can have in PR. There are thousands of PR professionals, but only a handful that understand the media, how it works, and who can speak to journalists effectively and gain their respect. If you can present yourself to a journalist like a journalist rather than a PR expert that has never set foot in a newsroom, you’re going to be better off.

Building relationships like this has helped us get real results for our clients. Now, when we pitch outlets like Fox News, the New York Times, and CNN, journalists take us seriously and listen to what we have to offer. More important, when you can deliver product consistently for the media, reporters are going to be happier with you and, while they’ll always refer to PR as “the dark side” you very well could be the one shining light they can depend on for great results.

Wal-Mart wins U.S. top court sex-bias ruling

Jun 20,2011
By James Vicini

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a mammoth class-action lawsuit charging sex discrimination at Wal-Mart Stores Inc on Monday in a ruling that could affect major cases in other industries. The justices unanimously overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that more than a million female employees nationwide could join in the lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions and seeking billions of dollars. The Supreme Court agreed with the giant American retailer that the class-action certification violated federal rules for such lawsuits. It accepted Wal-Mart's argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit. The ruling was a setback for women's groups, which have said a decision for the company could signal a significant retreat for women's rights in the workplace. It represented a major victory for Wal-Mart, which has also faced other legal battles, including an attempt to unionize and to block the giant retailer from opening stores in New York and other places. "We are pleased with today's ruling and believe the court made the right decision. Wal-Mart has had strong policies against discrimination for many years," the company said. Although the court rejected the class-action status, the small group of women who brought the lawsuit, such as Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart greeter at a store in Pittsburg, California, still can pursue their individual claims. The plaintiffs said they are disappointed by the decision. "The court's ruling erects substantially higher barriers for working women and men to vindicate rights to be free from employment discrimination," the plaintiffs said in a statement, stressing that the decision does not address whether Wal-Mart committed sex discrimination. Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and the largest private U.S. employer, has denied the allegations and said it has operated under a policy barring discrimination. EMPLOYERS REJOICE The ruling in the biggest business case of the high court's 2010-11 term could affect class-action lawsuits against the tobacco industry and Costco Wholesale Corp <COST.O>. It also was the court's most important job-discrimination dispute in more than a decade. Corporate defense attorneys said the ruling was a major victory for employers. "The decision pokes a big hole in the balloon of class actions for employment cases," said Michael Droke of Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Seattle. "Employers are literally breathing a collective sigh of relief." Analysts including Brendan Burke, an employment discrimination law expert at Navigant Economics consultants, said the Wal-Mart decision may lead to an increase in smaller putative class-action lawsuits against large employers, which could actually increase the cost to defendants. Justice Antonin Scalia concluded for the court majority that the class was not properly certified. "In all, Wal-Mart operates approximately 3,400 stores and employs more than one million people. Because respondents wish to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once, they need some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together," he said. The court's four other conservatives joined all of Scalia's ruling. The court's four liberals joined the part of it, but dissented in another part. Large class-action lawsuits make it easier for big groups of plaintiffs to sue corporations and they have led to huge payouts by tobacco, oil and food companies. Companies such as Wal-Mart have sought to limit such lawsuits to individual or small groups of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that often ruled for businesses, has rejected huge class-action lawsuits. The Supreme Court case is Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Betty Dukes, No. 10-277. (Additional reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago, Moira Herbst in new York and Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by Doina Chiacu)