Not Getting Taken By PR

Forget about the obvious spin, or press trips, or other mechanisms that companies and their press representatives use to try and get journalists to say what they want. Instead, it's often the small things that cause the biggest damage to truth. For example, I remember once, after having sent a query via ProfNet, getting a response from a PR person, writing about his Fortune 500 client. But the company was in the technology sphere and completely unknown to me. I don't have an absolute grasp on all the Fortune 500 company names, but generally I've heard of the technology companies, having covered that space a fair amount. So I went to Fortune's site and looked up the list ... and found that the company wasn't on it. When confronted, the PR person responded, "I meant a Fortune 500 type company."

Oh. Right. Of course.

Such fracturing or even bending of the truth happens all the time, because companies and individuals want to be perceived in a specific way, to their own ends. Some PR people don't know better, some are deliberately manipulative, and some are trying to deal with pressures from their clients. It doesn't matter - you have to check out each claim and crack them open.

I had another recent example - a food company that had approached me about reviewing their product for my Flash in the Pan blog. No problem, as I do that fairly often. The products came in, and they were unimpressive. I went back to the PR agency's email and noticed some healthy lifestyle claims pegged to the USDA's guidelines. Then I looked again at their numbers: meals under 320 calories, less than 10 grams fat, and under 600 milligrams of sodium.

How much sodium?

I went and found that while the caloric and fat contents were each about 15 percent of a 2,000 calorie comparative chart, the sodium was a full third of the suggested amount. Because the food was so tasteless after processing, I suspect they knew that the sodium would make most people think that there was some flavor, even if there really wasn't. Guess what went into my review?

The claims could be the would-be expert mentioning what was essentially a vanity-published book, treating a commonly-known business practice as something new, or any of a host of other grey-tinged lies. All you can do to avoid being taken in is some homework. When faced with the book credit, look up the publisher on the Internet and see if it seems legit or one of the growing number that write books for experts. Consider the business practice and check with someone who might know if it's unusual or not. In short, make the claims prove themselves. It rarely takes that much time, and it can keep you from looking like a fool to an editor, or in print.

Writers Must Be Reporters

Over time, some colleagues and I have noticed how many freelance writers, who have never worked in more traditional forms of journalism, don't think of themselves as reporters, and that's a pity. In my view, at least, there is an obligation for writers, whose work will appear in newspapers, magazines, and books, to focus on more than just the cleverness of their prose, or the invoice that accompanies it. The heart of any writing is its subject: the story. To get the story right means getting the details right. Not that I'm of the school cheering for mindless piles of verified detail as a form of story in itself. But if someone is going to make claims, then the writer has the obligation to do at least a little verification and apply a modicum of skepticism. When there is a mistake in a story, the writer should take it seriously, and, if the source of the error as gatekeeper, feel he or she let the reader down.

I've recently had the experience of some sources responding to Profnet queries and touting themselves as experts, citing their books. A little investigation showed two being self-published and another the client of a service that helps public speakers produce books to extend their platform. In principle, I have nothing against self-published authors. Many wonderful books had their start that way, and I've seen useful work from people who were truly experts in their fields come out of such production. But that is the exception these days, when people want instant credibility to further their careers. If someone cannot get a traditional publisher to take on a title, you should at least ask why. If not, you act as a PR outlet for the person.

When you blindly note every claim someone makes and one turns out to be wrong, you have two problems. One is that you've shirked your professional duty, and may have ruined your credibility with that publication. The other, as I've seen by friend and colleague Randy Hecht point out, is that you continue developing habits that will keep you from reaching the professional heights you otherwise might.

Debra Cash, a colleague and reader of this blog, had sent me a link about how the contracts for reality television shows can read. The author of the post, Joey Skaggs, is known as a media prankster, undertaking political and social commentary by making reporters look like fools. In his case, at least, he says that every communication he has with reporters contains at least one clue that they are being hoaxed. However, the vast majority of people who want to use you - whether would-be expert or corporation trying to burnish its market image - won't be so intentionally kind. That is why vigilance is the first step toward superior writing. As any chef knows, when the ingredients are good, you're 80 percent of the way to a good meal.

Searching the Web's Past

One problem in searching the web is that it’s constantly changing, and something that may have appeared on a page might not longer be there. For example, a company might have posted something that was incriminating in some way, shape, or form, and then, realizing this, taken it down.

In such a case, it’s time to call Mr. Peabody and hit the Wayback Machine. It’s a reference to the old cartoon episodes when a genius dog and his boy, Sherman (no relation), would travel into historic periods for amusement. And on the Internet, there is The Wayback Machine Internet Archive.

You provide the URL and this site goes through 85 billion pages archived since 1996 and shows you up-dates for each year. It doesn’t capture every change on the web; for example, I used it on my own site and found no changes in 2007 and only one in 2006, though I’ve made incremental changes in my home page. But, I did find older versions. It’s worth a check. Also, there is archived video, audio, text, and even legally down-loadable computer pro-grams and you can search through these as well.

If you only need to go back a few months, there are other options. Google.com, Live.com, Yahoo.com, Ask.com, and Gigablast.com all keep cached searches going back anywhere from three months to a year, depending on the search engine.

Blogs - Backdoors to the Minds of Clients

Want to get to the inside workings of clients? Try a blog. Oh, sorry - not yours. Theirs.

I just read a story in a publishing trade magazine called Circulation Management. The topic was how many publishers are running blogs on their sites. According to a study, three-quarters of all newspapers run blogs on business-related topics.The Magazine Publishers of America has an online list of 400 blogs of member companies - go there, click on a publication title, and you get a list of at least its top blogs (though possibly not all). Highlight the blog and you see recent post headlines with a first paragraph available by selecting that story. Blogging is also a rapidly increasing trend for many companies that are trying to communicate with their customers.

I'm sure some people think immediately of how this might turn into a regular assignment, and while that might be a possibility, it's actually not the big payoff. What blogs - particularly those written by prominent staffers and top editors - provide is a window into the interests of the publications. You get a real-time clue as to what they think about and what trends they see, by virtue of the content. Forget about only looking at back issues that may or may not represent old editorial regimes or discarded concepts. As things change, you'll see it on a daily or, at worst, weekly basis. Use it well and you'll have a head start to a winning query.