Lloyd Trufelman, president of Trylon SMR (a PR firm) told O’Dwyer’s Newsletter that PR people need to
step up to the plate and provide financial support to The Committee to Protect Journalists.
The committee, which tracks harassment of journalists worldwide, reports that at least 65 journalists were killed around the world in 2007 because of their work.
Trufelman says "…there would be no such thing as PR without journalism." He also thinks "…PR needs to show greater interest in journalists as dedicated professionals and not just vehicles for pitches."
With all due apologies to the family and friends of slain journalists, give me a break. Does Trufelman not read the various and sundry bashings of the PR industry by the media? Does he not see the journalism-PR relationship as a mutually beneficial one? Would journalists ever contribute money to a ‘Committee to Protect PR People’ who might also work in high-risk zones? (I’m joking, btw). Last, but not least, is Trufelman’s plea not akin to slapping a PBA sticker on one’s car windshield to avoid paying speeding tickets?
Me thinks he’s sucking up big time to the working press.
We do not make any contributions to that particular group. What other agencies do is their business.
I’m not one for conjecture; perhaps Peppercom could survey a group of journalists and post their responses for a definitive answer? Speaking of Peppercom, again, does your agency make any $ contributions to CPJ or other such journalism support organizations? And if not, do you discourage fellow PR pros from doing so?
Hi Ed: My blog posed the question: if the roles were reversed, would journalists make a similar contribution to our industry? Would you disagree that the answer would be a resounding “no”?
Does this mean that Peppercom, the PR agency that represents the Columbia School of Journalism, is against making a small financial contribution to CPJ and advises other PR professionals to adopt a similar policy?
Great point Mr. Moock, aka Lunch Boy. I always push for phone interviews- especially bc the conversation allows the two parties to forge a personal relationship that email doesn’t allow.
I agree with you, but would like to bring up another topic I have been thinking about of late.
Me thinks that some journalists (not targeting those on the front lines of war) should “show greater interest” in speaking with their sources vs. conducting more and more interviews over emails these days. What’s next, interviews by texting?
I mean, besides being lazy, they are missing a great opportunity to cultivate a realtionship, may miss an inflection in the source’s voice, and may use someone’s words in a way he/she is not completely comfortable with.
Once in a while (like when against a tight deadline), I can see this practice being acceptable. But I feel that it happens with too much frequency.
I’m sure if Hearst or Pulitzer knew about this practice they certainly wouldn’t approve.
Thoughts on this point, Rep? I would love to hear Colter and Purdue weigh in, too.