Les Hack - a journalist writes about journalism Comments

Photoshopping and Fucking

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:36:44 +0000

Author: David Hoffman
Date: Aug 11, 2006 12:26 PM
URL: http://www.hoffmanphotos.com

Thanks Tony Maybe Johnny Hack & co would like to amend their header? "No brief, no commisssion, no favour, no fear, no connection with reality" would seem to fit the ethos here. David Hoffman

Photoshopping and Fucking

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:36:44 +0000

Author: Tony Sleep
Date: Aug 10, 2006 3:02 AM
URL: http://tonysleep.com

Hajj won't be doing any chasing. I believe you'll find that Reuters contracts take copyright from their freelances. You misrepresent EPUK discussions. I'll have to precis, since it is a confidential list: #1,#2,#3,#4 asked for and provided links to the images and blog discussions, nothing else. #5 gave a link and expressed the view that the cloning was badly done, should not have got past any desk, and the photographer should be sacked #6 post gave another link to the before and after pics. #7 gave another link and made exactly the point you say was not made, the risk and damage it did to others reporting the conflict. #8, #9 contained links, not comments #10 contained a link, expressed that it was poor PS, that the poster felt somewhat sorry for the photog. who must be under pressure, that it didn't help other photog's but that ethics seem a bit of an incongruous preoccupation in Beirut. And that Reuters should have picked it up #11 said thanks for a link. #12 said the photog must be crazed from pressure, but why didn't Reuters notice? #13 pointed everyone at the story on the EPUK site http://www.epuk.org/News-snippets/reuters-under-fire-for-faked-photos, which had appeared the previous day #14 agreed it was bad news for other photographers in Lebanon and cited one whose blog was under verbal fire from archair experts, whom he suggested might like to visit personally. #15 was an apology over some stupidity with a link #16 contained a forwarded account from the same photographer described in #14. He'd been within 50m of an Israeli missile explosion that day. '"I'm being bombed by the israelis and these blogging cunts sit there in their cosy armchairs and write this stuff" By then the thread had been running 1h 14m. Your derisive description of discussion on EPUK is a work of fiction. Perhaps Reuters might give you a job.

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Observer
Date: Aug 7, 2006 5:28 PM

Why don't you get off your soapbox and realise that all PaidContent and other sites are doing is to try and monetise some very valuable information. This is the future of blog journalism- it's not being paid to write about certain companies, the sponsored links are clearly marked...just as they are in magazines where advertorial appears and it's marked 'advertising feature'. Sometimes you try and pick holes in places where there are no holes to be picked...i will certainly be watching closely to see what sponsorship appears on this site!

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Kim
Date: Aug 7, 2006 2:59 PM

I was one of the journalists who received the email that both Sally and Les Hacks mention. My impression was that the company who sent it out really thought that this was a legitimate and quite usual way of going about things - I've come across other non-journos who think the same thing, unfortunately. No wonder we have such a bad reputation. I've since exchanged a couple of emails with the company in question, and I'd like to think they'll now go about approaching freelancers in a more orthodox way, but perhaps I'm being naive.

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Sally
Date: Jul 22, 2006 9:21 PM
URL: http://www.gettingink.typepad.com

Many of the hacks who received the email offer of work you mention (it was sent to everyone in the nuj freelance directory covering tech) were only too delighted to jump on their own high horses and deluge the sender with outraged replies of the 'how dare you insult my journalistic integrity' variety. It's also been widely debated on email and web discussion forums. Some loser hack will doubtless take the gig, but really, are they likely to be the kind of person who can generate a great feature in anything anyone would actually read?? Yes, journo standards are important, and I think running advertorial disguised as editorial is a dangerous move, but I think there's also a danger of creating a false perception that this kind of practice is more widespread than it is. I've probably written for 50 magazines and half a dozen newspapers. I've also edited for a number of publishing companies. And I've never, ever come across this kind of practice. I've also never met a journalist who would be complicit in this kind of thing. Not necessarily because we're all Abe Lincoln, but simply because it only takes one person to find us out, and our professional reputation and earning power would be totally f*cked. Most of us like to hold on to what little professional regard we have, and aren't about to sell out our reputations and potentially hit our earning power for £500 from some dodgy PR agency. Oh, and don't mistake the fact of journos not saying anything online with them not noticing what's said - I'm sure most people reading that post made a note of the editor and the magazine and marked the guy's card accordingly...

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Linda
Date: Jul 21, 2006 9:35 PM
URL: http://passionatemedia.typepad.com

I can relate to every word Mark says. But I can understand that when he asks 'where's the harm in that?' there's potentially plenty. A couple of years ago I used to stand up in a room of potential PR clients and ask them how much of their papers were made up of PR, and give a small prize to who guessed the closest. I interviewed a spokeswoman from the CIPR and she said the figure that was often quoted was 85 per cent - though she couldn't say where that figure came from. For me, it comes down to trust and that readers should be able to trust a publication. Simplistic I know. As a PR I can present clearly identified PR material to objective journalists and hope they will be interested in taking it further - adding their own slant or analysis but I couldn't sleep at night if I presented that same material myself to editors in the form of an objective pitch. My experience as a journalist helps me identify there's a story there but I'm not the one to do it. Press releases I have worked on are clearly marked as such and do get used word for word. I pitched a feature last week which has since been filed. I made it clear in the pitch that its subject was my business partner and when it was commissioned I was so paranoid that I was somehow 'crossing a line' by not being impartial, I flagged up our relationship again. Like Mark's work, the piece I have written stands up as a news feature. If the editor had come back to me and said "It reads like a PR exercise," I think I could have died of shame. Over recent months several freelance journalists have asked me how to 'place' PR clients in features they can pitch to newspapers. I've been shocked by this and tell them not to blur the lines. Who's going to trust them if they pitch anything else in the future without declaring their vested interest?

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Les Hacks
Date: Jul 21, 2006 7:53 PM
URL: http://www.hackles.co.uk

Rafat, thanks for that clarification. I look forward to seeing a statement on your web site to that effect, because from on top of my high horse here it doesn't look good. Some of the posts on your blogs can be quite subjective in nature, and where subjectivity creeps in you can't blame a reader for wondering what lies behind. Mark, thanks for your post. Like many comments I have received, yours has revealed that things are even worse than I portray them. Congratulations. Steve, nice plug for your employer's web site. It's a debate worth having, so I won't dwell on the fact that Mr Greenslade has attempted to hijack it. All's fair in the incestuous world of blogging after all. Mat, yes you might as well go buy the one you saw advertised on the train station. Alternatively, you could source a number of reviews and take the mean from that. And/or take advantage of some of the sites or forums where the consumers review the products. For example, if I wished to buy a digital recorder, I would seek advice from my peers on a journalists' forum.

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: mark
Date: Jul 21, 2006 4:25 PM

Hmmm as a hack for 20 years before becoming a PR I now regularly write pieces for all kinds of publications which go in as straightforward journalism as if written by a staff reporter. But if a piece stands up on its journalistic merits where is the harm? And as I write my press releases as if they were news stories and they go in word for word where's the harm in that? I remember turning fistfuls of press releases into stories as I progressed from local bi-weekly to regional evening to regional daily. And on the Sunday redtops I also created nibs from press releases every week. Working shifts on national dailies from red tops to what Kelvin calls the unpopulars I regularly got bylines on re-written agency or freelance copy or on stories re-written from press releases, especially ones from "official" sources. Then there are all those surveys. Take any publication and a huge percentage of stories will be sourced from PRs. I think Les Hacks are protesting too much perhaps because they are middle men who will mostly just regurgitate what I and my fellows PRs brief them and then charge a publication for that fairly limited service. Is there any proper reporter ie one who had proper training NCTJ, prof test, etc who can claim never to have been handed a press release with the phrase "Knock us three pars out of that." Off from the high horses ladies and gentlemen

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Rafat
Date: Jul 21, 2006 4:13 PM

You're joking, right? Sponsorship means we charge a flat monthly fee from advertisers, compared to the CPM/CPC/CPA model. It certainly doesn't mean they influence any of our content. For conference blog, it is a special section, and it doesn't mean sponsors "influence" or even try to influence our coverage there...it is completely separate. How is that different from any other advertising on another newspaper or website? Think or ask before you write...they may have taught you that in journalism as well right. Rafat Ali Editor paidContent.org

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: Mat
Date: Jul 21, 2006 2:31 PM

"Readers beware: don't ever trust an article about products or services again" Well that's very even-handed. Wherever will I get expert opinion on products and services I know nothing about? Aah well, I'll just go buy the one I saw advertised at the train station...

The architects of compromise

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:33:33 +0000

Author: SteveB
Date: Jul 21, 2006 12:27 PM
URL: http://media.guardian.co.uk/

You make a very interesting point about paidcontent.org. Traditional media organisations still have traditional revenue streams to maintain their online production. Indeed, in some cases, they have monetised their internet activities. But how do the new online-only operators intend to make enough money to grow? Your piece is discussed at: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:12 +0000

Author: Les Hacks
Date: Jul 13, 2006 2:08 PM
URL: http://www.hackles.co.uk

Yes, I have had very bad experiences with media recruitment agencies in the past, as a jobseeker. Their priority is their clients of course, and the hefty commission they earn for successfully placing a candidate. Most seem to forget that the candidates may well become employers themselves one day and they won't forget the shoddy treatment they received from the agencies.

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:12 +0000

Author: Mark
Date: Jul 13, 2006 11:25 AM

Interesting comment about whether some of the agency jobs really exist. Three times I've enquired of the same agency about listed jobs, asking where they were located as I didn't want to go to the inconvenience of having an interview with the agency if the location didn't suit. Three times I've been completely ignored.

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:12 +0000

Author: Les Hacks
Date: Jul 12, 2006 1:09 PM
URL: http://www.hackles.co.uk

I can't vouch for David Parnell - who do you work for? His claim that most of the ads on journalism.co.uk come from one or two recruitment agencies does not stand up though. A large chunk (about half?) do come from a single advertiser - Bloomberg - which is not a recruitment agency so I suppose that might cause confusion among the ill-informed. Nor is his claim about HTFP fully accurate either - they regularly re-run the same adverts, sometimes for months on end. Perhaps because no one in their right mind would work for the pitiful salaries on offer (rarely mentioned in their adverts) and the appalling working conditions the "big four" are infamous for.

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:12 +0000

Author: Scarecrow
Date: Jul 12, 2006 12:49 PM

Any chance that David Parnell works for Media Guardian? Seems unhappy with every other medium!

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:12 +0000

Author: David Parnell
Date: Jul 12, 2006 10:38 AM

Journalism.co.uk would seem to have ads mostly from a couple of recruitment agencies too, and they are all on for a whole month, boosting that tantalisingly high ad figure. HTFP has a quick turnaround (many jobs are only listed for one week) but seems only to fuel musical chairs in editorial roles between the big four regional publishers. Good for juniors on the way up, I suppose. As for the PG - they run more ad space on the jobs pages of the print version for themselves than they do for paying customers. Just an observation!

More bizarre behaviour from the Press Gazette

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15:12 +0000

Author: Scarecrow
Date: Jul 12, 2006 9:12 AM

Bizarre or Clever? PG have not had Regional Vacancies for some time now (well, since Holdthefrontpage.co.uk basically cornered that market), perhaps rather than this being 'Bizarre behaviour', it is a very clever way of re-introducing an important reader platform without undermining its own revenue market by getting it sponsored. As for Mr Morgan..last I hear he has been too busy in LA with Mr Cowell to be too heavily involved!

Code of Ethics

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:13 +0000

Author: Linda
Date: Jun 24, 2006 12:54 AM
URL: http://www.passionatemedia.co.uk

Phew. The stuff about journalists complaining about personal service with a 'do you know who I am' type swagger has always troubled me. It's a small point when pitted against the much bigger concerns you discuss here, isn't it but I just don't get why anyone would think they should be allowed to get away with it.

Code of Ethics

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:13 +0000

Author: Les Hacks
Date: Jun 23, 2006 10:47 PM
URL: http://www.hackles.co.uk

Apart from the licence fee, people don't pay for TV news. Or radio news. And, wake up Charles, people are already declining to pay for journalism regardless of their involvement or otherwise in its processes. At the moment, it's still handy to have something to carry around, fold up and read on the train. But you know what? I already rarely buy papers - I read other people's leftovers or freesheets or get my news from the TV, radio or web. And when I do, I get inky black fingers - how anachronistic is that? In any case, I am not talking about the public writing the news (who said anything about newspapers?), but instead, through their greater interaction with journalists, making it more accountable, vibrant and interesting.

Code of Ethics

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:13 +0000

Author: Sally
Date: Jun 21, 2006 11:09 PM
URL: http://www.gettingink.typepad.com

Personally, I'm glad to see someone else takes the issue of journalist ethics semi-seriously. I had a very "lively" discussion with a PR recently, who argued that all UK journalists are inherently corrupt, can be bought off with some copywriting gig or a good press trip, and don't produce anything even close to independent editorial. She genuinely said to me: "If a story's no good, I just throw some money at it." Really, though, who can blame her for thinking this? I regularly see email requests sent to PRs by journos who are asking for free kit, advertising their availability for media training, looking for pre-written quotes or even features, etc etc. Then there are the journos who never pay full price for their holidays, or who insist on ringing their mobile phone company's press office every time they feel customer service isn't up to par considering their lofty status. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this stuff matters. So thanks for talking about it.