The architects of compromise

As part of my research for this blog, I 'lurk' on a number of journalists' forums. On one list recently, a former editor attempted to explain the position of editors trying to operate under ever-shrinking budgets. Under pressure from his/her publisher, s/he was forced to fun features written by journalists who had been commissioned and paid by public relations firms.

Sharp intake of breath. But, astonishingly, on a forum claiming to have several hundred freelance journalist members, not one commented on this extraordinary admission.

I also learned that a company had been targeting prominent freelance journalists in the UK asking them to write and place articles promoting their products. In other words, to use their contacts and reputation to hoodwink commissioning editors into publishing puff material under the guise of impartial journalism.

Thankfully the two or three recipients who admitted to being approached, were incensed at the suggestion. But clearly a climate exists in which this sort of practice can flourish.

Elsewhere, on paidContent.org, large sections of its content are "sponsored" by various commercial enterprises (how does that differ from advertising?) and the site invites (and gets) sponsors to pay for its 'coverage' of conference events. So that is what 'paid content' is then. Before long, I expect to see journalists turning up at events wearing corporate-branded T-shirts.

Bottom line, advertorial is being passed off as editorial, and there are clearly 'journalists' out there prepared to participate in this process. Readers beware: don't ever trust an article about products or services again. Chances are, somewhere down the line, someone's been bought off.

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

The Press Gazette (PG) recently signed a deal with the Press Association to sponsor regional newspaper adverts in the magazine.

I quote from the PG's original piece:

Regional newspaper publishers will from this week be able to place vacancies across one or two pages dedicated to the sector, at no cost.

The regional press has had a tough year commercially - with widespread job cuts - and the initiative hopes to extend the reach of regional advertising beyond a handful of online-only alternatives.

I don't get it. Regional press publishers are axeing jobs but are still apparently making obscene profits so obviously they deserve to get free recruitment advertising. And obviously we should be falling over ourselves to go and work for these wonderful employers who cannot even afford or be bothered to pay a few quid to recruit staff. Not exactly an exciting prospect is it?

Also, what sort of message is the PG sending out by encouraging the practice of 'free advertising' for publishers? Revenue from recruitment advertising helps pay the wages of many of its readers who work on trade publications, for example.

The true purpose of this scheme may be to claw back some of the damage inflicted on PG's recruitment ad revenue by 'online-only' alternative holdthefrontpage.co.uk, the regional press recruitment vehicle for Newsquest, Northcliffe, Johnston Press and Trinity Mirror. Given the dominance the 'big four' have in this sector, the PG is essentially scrabbling for crumbs under the table.

As for the Press Association, wouldn't it rather be selling content to help fill the pages of under-staffed newspapers instead of encouraging 'free' recruitment?

Last week's PG boasts of having more jobs online than any other resource. At today's count, that's 52 jobs, 30 of which are from a single recruitment agency (do all those jobs really exist, or are they just collecting CVs?). The Media Guardian would probably have something to say about that, and journalism.co.uk has twice as many (105, it claims). All a bit desperate really.

Under Piers Morgan's control, the PG has been acting increasingly strangely (eg "Citizen Journalism" awards for, err, mobile camera snapshots and video - doh). But I guess the same could be said of his tenure at the Daily Mirror...