Do you think this is a conflict of interest?
Recently a PR, who I won't be naming, contacted me asking if I would be interested in working with them in a paid capacity to help generate story ideas across their client base and then pitching/writing those stories as a journalist.
I thanked them for the opportunity but said I couldn't be paid by a PR agency/company to work on stories that I would then be writing about for a newspaper or magazine. I said that it would be a conflict of interest. If we have journalists being paid by both the company featured and the newspaper/magazine, then that crosses boundaries. I’m sure we all want an independent unbiased press, not one where actually the journalist has been paid by one of the companies to feature them in the press.
They said I was the first freelancer to decline it on this basis. And although the extra income would be wonderful right now, I stood my ground as it didn’t sit well with me.
Bemused that some freelance journalists were agreeing to this way of working, I checked in with a couple of my key editors to find out their views.
This is what one of my editors at the nationals said:
"It would be unethical. And I couldn’t commission you to write a feature including a company that was paying you to do its PR."
Another agreed:
“Short answer - yes, I totally agree with you - I think that would be unethical, and that as an editor, I would automatically assume a freelancer wouldn't be being paid by the companies they are mentioning.”
So, please, by all means work with a freelance journalist by brainstorming ideas (little plug here for my content network of talented hacks and I who can help you here). But then don’t ask them to pitch and write a story on the same company to a title (and any freelance journalists reading this, please don't also do this). Imagine reading an article and then finding out the journalist was being paid to feature said company. Public trust in journalism is already waning. Let's make sure the media industry still has some integrity left.
One way to build stronger relationships with journalists (and increase your chances of press coverage)
Last year I filed a piece for a national newspaper but unfortunately weeks later the whole section was pulled without notice. Fortunately (or rightly so, even) I was still paid and was given permission to pitch the piece to other outlets. I pitched Wired but to no avail (they never responded - not hearing back also very much happens to journalists).
Last month I pitched the piece to a very respectable trade magazine and I secured a commission with them (I’ll publish it when it goes live as I don’t wish to jinx it). It involves further interviews and a different angle but it was subject I’d already worked on and am keen to see it through.
It made me realise that there’s a place here for PRs to be super helpful and suggest ways freelance journalists can maximise their work. For example, in this case, perhaps once of the PRs I had told I wouldn’t be able to place it with the national could have said: “Actually, if you’re looking for other titles to place this, I can suggest trying the Wired features editor, trade magazine X which has a new vertical and is always looking for feature ideas, or there’s a Q&A in this tech magazine that would fit the bill.”
This particular subject is the PR’s stronghold. They'll be working hours every weeks trying to secure press coverage across national to trade press. They'll be (or should be) inhaling all the potential media covering the subject, be aware of the feature editors commissioning such stories, and have the knowledge to know where a piece could work, and how it could be changed to fit a particular title’s style. As a freelance journalist, I know I don’t do this enough, but then pieces rarely fall through. BUT, there’s room here for after a national piece has been published, for example, for the PR with all their knowledge and contacts to suggest how the freelance journalist they've just worked with could rework it for a particular trade or consumer title and also share their contacts. A win for the PR for potentially securing two or more pieces of coverage, and a win for the journalist in landing more commissions and money. And just a fantastic way to build relationships.
Time’s are very difficult very now and I will certainly be once again banging on about just how tough it is as a freelance journalist, but by working together (and building relationships) there’s ways to make things a little bit easier for all parties.
Jeff Bezos gags The Washington Post’s opinion section
Established in 1877, The Washington Post is (or was) seen as one of the most well-regarded newspapers in the US.
However, last week its owner made a shocking announcement that angered its readers so much that more than 75,000 of its digital subscribers cancelled their subscriptions. I was one of them.
Amazon billionaire Jezz Bezos bought The Washington Post in 2013. You can imagine the concern amongst staff and readers when that was announced but Bezos was known to have left the editors pretty much to their own devices, reportedly only minimally involved every couple of weeks.
However, his relative hands-off approach shifted dramatically last year when Bezos stopped The Washington Post from endorsing Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. It was the first time since the 1980s that the newspaper didn’t endorse a presidential candidate. Of course, the move indicated Bezos wanted to be in favour with Trump. According to NPR, between then and Election Day, more than 300,000 subscribers – some 12% of its digital subscribers - cancelled their subscription.
Not concerned with the threat of losing more, the billionaire made an even more shocking decision last week, though in line with recent moves by billionaires Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to cosy up to Trump.
Last Wednesday Bezos revealed that he would radically transform the paper's opinion pages so that opinions that support and defend “personal liberties” and “free markets” would be welcome, and other viewpoints would be "left to be published by others”.
"We'll cover other topics too of course," Bezos wrote in a note to staffers that he posted publicly X, "but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others".
The decision clearly shows he doesn’t want his newspaper to criticise the Trump administration, which he has given $1 million to since October. Bezos’s Amazon and his space company Blue Origin has contracts with the federal government worth billions of dollars annually.
The move led to the immediate resignation of opinion editor David Shipley. According to NPR, he tried to persuade Bezos to drop the plans, according to a person with direct knowledge.
The decision also led to criticism from associate editor David Maraniss and former executive editor Marty Baron. Baron called the move "craven" and told Zeteo News that Bezos, whom he praised extensively in his 2023 memoir, was "basically fearful" of President Trump.
Marty Baron, the regarded former editor of the Washington Post, said in an interview with the Guardian that Jeff Bezos's announcement that the newspaper’s opinion section would narrow its editorial focus was a “betrayal of the very idea of free expression” that had left him “appalled”.
In an interview with the Guardian, Baron also said: “I don’t think that [Bezos] wants an editorial page that’s regularly going after Donald Trump.”
Bezos’s announcement was met with criticism and resulted in the departure of the newspaper’s opinions editor, David Shipley. Baron, who was executive editor of the Washington Post from 2012 until 2021 and is one of the most esteemed figures in American journalism, blasted Bezos’s decision.
What an actual horror show for journalism and free speech. I can only imagine the journalists at the Washington Post will be bearing it all through gritted teeth.
For gawd's sake...check a journalist's details
I’m writing this from Boca De Agua in Bacalar in Yucatan, Mexico. This jungle retreat is sustainable luxe (my room is about $750 a night) with guesting stay high up in treehouses with pools. As yet another freelance journalist with money woes, it is (of course), out of my budget but luckily it's a work gig so I have the opportunity to see how the other half live. And I'm probably the first person to walk through the doors with a dusty old backpack. After almost a month in Mexico, I'm finally bidding adios for a short while from tomorrow as I travel through Belize. Any tips welcome.
The latest Buzzstream State of Digital PR report is out and I thought it was interesting to see how many (61%) PRs said the main challenge in building their media lists was information was outdated or incorrect. I know journalists move around but if these media list companies are charging thousands, I don't know why they can't keep them up to date. The next question asked if a PR verifies a journalist’s fit by looking at their recent articles almost a third (31%) said sometimes, while when the same question was asked about their bio, 36% said they only did it sometimes.
Unless I know for certain the Money editor I want to pitch at the Independent is in fact the Money editor, then I always need to verify details. I do this by visiting the website they work at. If this isn't clear, I also check out social media profiles. I know the report indicates that many PRs are indeed doing a thorough job and checking details and making sure their pitches reach the right person, there are many out there that are just winging it (I can’t tell you how many column pitches I’ve received and generally how many irrelevant emails land in my inbox). Like us journalists, we need to check the right in-house editor's details to make sure we our story ideas land correctly. Not doing so can lead to so many emails coming through that are irrelevant and are a waste of everyone’s time. More information on the report here.
When you're grateful for the excellent PRs and press officers
I’m writing this from Merida, a pastel-hued city where I’ve been firmly ensconced for the past six days. Travelling is bringing me so much joy. I’ve relaxed on the idyllic and car-free island of Holbox, stayed with an arty Mexican family in Valladolid who surprised me a vegan chocolate cake on my birthday (which also involved having a peaceful solo 30-minute rotation of a cenote, checking into Casa Olivia in Merida and having a two-person deep tissue massage (woe my back from the 80-litre backpack), and dinner in a hip Mexican restaurant with a Chinese former journalist who now resides in Merida….all in all, a very bueno day), and over oversized margaritas in one of the oldest cantinas with local A told me that he and his family moved here as they wanted a safe sanctuary as kidnappings sadly became the norm in their home town in northern Mexico.
While I’m having this experience, I am also working. I’m juggling travel writing alongside my usual journalism and my media consultancy services, bringing together PRs for brainstorming sessions with journalists. And, on top of that, exploring. No requests for sympathy, of course. It’s a lot but it’s my decision. I can’t afford not to work.
I’ve been working alongside some press officers recently and although I work with many PRs and press officers that are absolutely fantastic, sometimes the experience just makes me shake my head. There’s often a lot of chasing from my side, and a total lack of effort and engagement from theirs. People doing the bare minimum: putting up just a spokesperson for a national interview and then when pushed for the CEO saying they can possibly arrange the following week. This is after asking for this initial request six weeks ago. There’s so much potential to go beyond, and dig deeper to help bring a story to life. I don’t know what their workflow is like on the other end, although I understand I am one of many journalists they’ll be in touch with. But it feels like such a contrast to when you work with excellent PRs and press officers who do everything to make a story happen: who set up the interview pronto, who you don’t have to chase, who send you additional useful information.
Although some of them I still need to work with because of the lack of companies in that space and because we’re nearly at the finishing line, you know you’ll remember the poor communications and will no doubt avoid in the future.
The controversy surrounding the sale of the UK's oldest Sunday newspaper
There's strife over at the Guardian and Observer as journalists at the newspapers plan to strike for 48 hours over plans to offload the Observer to Tortoise.
It’s the first industrial action by staff at the titles in decades, indicating just how much staff are fiercely against the move. Some 93% of Guardian and Observer journalists voted in favour of strike action in protest at the deal last week.
The strikes are set to take place on December 4 and 5.
Union members passed a motion stating that selling the 233 year-old Sunday newspaper to Tortoise would be a “betrayal” of the Scott Trust’s commitment to the Observer. The Trust is the ultimate owner of Guardian Media Group.
The Guardian hasn't been happy at those speaking out about the potential sale. Press Gazette reports that Guardian and Observer writer Carole Cadwalladr was contacted by management after appearing on the Media Confidential podcast hosted by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger earlier this month. She has also spoken out on this X thread. Press Gazette said it "understands she has been accused of disparaging colleagues and the company and of making inaccurate statements. Cadwalladr said she denies disparaging anyone and said no detail has been given about alleged inaccuracies."
At the helm of Tortoise is James Harding, former editor of the Times and former director of BBC News. He has recently been on a media crusade to help the sale go through. Though its yet to make a profit, Harding has said Tortoise will pump £20m into the Observer and plans to continue to publish the Observer on a Sunday and build the Observer’s digital presence, combining with Tortoise’s podcasts, newsletters and live events.
A Guardian spokesperson said that it did “not believe a strike is the best course of action” and that its chief aim was to ensure that both the Guardian and Observer “thrive in a challenging media environment”
Friends of mine at the paper told me that they will be joining the strike next week.
Some Observer freelancers have already started jumping ship. Observer restaurant critic Jay Rayner is to join the Financial Times after 25 years reviewing restaurants for the Observer. (And good news for fans of restaurant critic Marina O’Loughlin - she has joined the FT as a columnist.)
Though at least Tortoise has created some stellar journalism such as Sweet Bobby (which has turned into a Netflix show), it feels like a risky move that will put both the Observer and its journalists at risk. Watch this space.
Never ask a journalist to do this...
For those of you who haven't read about the absolute communications car crash that took the tech and PR world by storm last week (ok, a dose of hyperbole there), let me fill you in.
Following a tense exchange during a podcast interview between Sasan Goodarzi, chief executive of Intuit, which owns TurboTax, and editor-in-chief of The Verge and host of the Decoder podcast Nilay Patel, Patel received a note from Rick Heineman, the chief communications officer at Intuit, calling the line of questioning and his tone “inappropriate,” “egregious,” and “disappointing” and demanded that they delete that entire section of the recording. Yes, really.
Patel added: “I mean, literally — he wrote a long email that ended with “at the very least the end portion of your interview should be deleted"."
Patel then explained that The Verge has abides by journalistic ethics and doesn't remove content or make changes.
You'd think Heineman might have then just left it. But no. He responded by asking that they “delete that which takes away from the conversation,” which he defined as “raised voices” or us “speaking over each other,” so that “listeners understand your question and the answer Sasan gave".
Instead, Patel wrote a separate article about the request and focused on that segment of the interview.
Now, I’m assuming Goodarzi said to his PR, something along the lines of “Do whatever you can to remove that part of the podcast”. The PR might have tried his best to tell his boss this would be the wrong line of approach, that journalists don’t do this. But the PR should have stood his ground.
But as a result of this exchange — which probably wouldn’t have gained that much traction outside of The Verge, it’s led to a separate article by The Verge and further coverage on Inuit’s response on other websites, plus traction on social media. It’s embarrassing for Inuit, Sassan and Heineman.
There’s an extra point to be made here about the comms person perhaps not briefing the CEO correctly so they were ill prepared for that line of questioning. Hands up, I don’t know Inuit that well, but it appears that these questions should have been expected.
I’m often asked by people (sometimes even PRs, though mainly, but not all the time, they're based out of the UK) to see if they can see the article before it goes live. I’ve had this conversation several times in the past week, in fact. I talk about this in my workshops, but no, unless it is a sensitive subject, such as an interview with a domestic abuse survivor, I don’t allow anyone else to see part/all of the article, check it and amend it before it goes live – apart from the publisher. If we want independent and unbiased journalism, then we certainly don’t want other people controlling and greenlighting the content.
Of course, if it’s factually incorrect, politely tell us and we’ll change it.
The move towards churnalism
It was recently reported that Birmingham Live editor Graeme Brown last month emailed journalists on his team to say that they should file at least eight stories per day unless they were newsgathering out of the office.
“We need to make more of shifts where people are not going out as drivers of volume," said Brown, as first quoted by Hold The Front Page. "In practice, if you’re on a general shift and you’re not on a job, it should be at least eight stories a shift.”
Urgh. I can imagine the intense pressure these journalists are under already and then to be told they need to file eight stories a day.
I know local, like national, publishers are struggling but insisting on such a number of stories just creates even more churnalism; if you want good quality local journalism, then you can’t insist journalists knock out eight stories a day.
There's plenty of important stories that don’t have to involve stepping outside the office, but instead battering the phones and say, calling the emergency services to follow up on as story, chasing leads, and conducting interviews. This can't be achieved if journalists are forced to write eight stories a day. I can just imagine the burn out, exhaustion and low levels of job satisfaction these journalists are living with when it's all about volume, and not quality.
When the story broke, journalist Olivia Devereux-Evans commented on X: “As someone who has done this… a 7-3pm shift means writing at least a story an hour, sometimes more. Sometimes I didn’t take a proper lunch break as I felt pressure to hit 8 stories and was consistently stressed about page views…”
Similarly Louis Staples said: “As someone who used to work in clickbait content farming: this puts reporters at professional and personal risk. It burns them out and leads to mistakes and a loss confidence, not to mention questionable ethical judgements in pursuit of traffic. End this model!”
Maybe instead they should focus on creating useable websites that doesn't bring up annoying pop-ups every time you try to read an article.
Slow right down
I wanted to chat this week about the speed of talking in interviews. When a journalist is interviewing you/your client, of course it might feel a/ super exciting and b/ like you want to use the opportunity to reel off everything about the subject you're speaking on so you don't miss anything out.
But this can prove to be a bit of a headache for the journalist.
For my interviews, and for many of my fellow journalists, we’re often interviewing over the phone, or perhaps using Teams or Zoom, and most certainly with our earphones in and tapping away making notes on own computers or in a notebook (unless it’s a live interview, of course). What often happens is the interviewee speaks so quickly it’s difficult to type/write up what they’re saying and secondly, it’s hard to keep up and digest what they’re saying when they’re speaking at 50 mph, especially if it's on a subject we're not used to. Also, what often happens is people speak continuously, covering and switching between several points at once.
So, while the journalist will often ask for the interviewee to slow down, or repeat a point, I would advise anyone to speak slower and more concisely than you usually would. Pause. Breathe. Let the point sink in. Don’t rush to bring in lots of different points all at once or you could lose the journalist or the viewer/listener.
Of course, there’s AI translation tools we could all use to make our lives easier but at the moment, most journalists are not using these on a daily basis when interviewing someone.
All hail the freelancer fighters
There’s been some good news over the past month with both the Guardian and BBC upping their freelancer rates. I’ll share what these are as I expect many people not be familiar with what kind of rates freelancers receive.
Firstly, the Guardian has increased its rates for casuals and freelancers by 2.5%. This no doubt took a lot of grafting from freelancers such as Donna Ferguson and the NUJ staff reps who push for stronger rates for us freelancers, who aren’t often given as much thought as staffers. It means lineage rates will rise to 37p a word across the Guardian, and casual shifts will increase to £215 a day this year. Meanwhile the BBC has increased its article feature rate to £369.60.
I wish these were larger amounts but I'm thankful for the small wins and the people who have campaigned for such increases.
Cut out the jargon
Whether it's in your/your client's team, company, or even industry, there'll no doubt be certain terms thrown around that mean something to you all but to anyone outside of this world, it's meaningless. This was the case for me during a recent interview I held with a senior person at a company for an article for the nationals. Throughout the interview they used terms that no-one outside of their team or industry would know, prompting me to constantly stop and ask what those terms meant. There was one word that was being said through the interview that meant something most of us would understand to mean but when I asked a question at the end of the interview about the use of X, she said actually, that word wasn’t what was meant in the Oxford Dictionary. It meant something very different. It was only because I asked a particular question at the end that I then knew that. Otherwise the piece would have included it referring to its original meaning, not the one used by the company.
Whether you are sending over comments, writing a press release, or speaking to a journalist, remember to cut out the jargon and use plain English. Or, if when you are prepping your client, remind them. Also remind them not to sound like they're giving a sales pitch to a client with lines that don’t really say or mean anything, rather than answering the questions.
For example:
ME: How do you plan to use AI in the future?
THEM: “We want to explore all elements of AI to help our customers so we can continue being the leading technology provider in our field - our mission is to be the best provider for all of our clients.”
Yes, sometimes it really is like interviewing a politician.
Drop me a line if you’d like more information or recommendations about media training.
Pitch me for this national newspaper slot
Hope you’re all well amongst this hatred and division amongst sections of society. It’s ugly and deeply upsetting (though last night's anti-racism protests gave me hope). Love and solidarity to anyone feeling vulnerable right now.
I have started writing for The Sunday Time's Fame & Fortune section. It’s a Q&A at the back of the Money pages, in which a famous person is interviewed about their finances. Questions range from ‘Are you a saver or a spender?’ to ‘Have you ever been hard up?’.
This means I’m on the lookout for well-known people who have never been featured in the slot. If you have someone who might be of interest and doesn’t mind discussing their finances, please email me. The editor is happy to include a credit to promote a project/charity.
Call out for stories from Mexico, Guatemala and the US
Last week I interviewed several people travelling the world by boat. Oh my, was I green-eyed when she turned the video on and showed me the turquoise waters the boat was bobbing around on.
It's spurred me to start thinking ahead to my dream of exploring North and Central America from early January (as long my health is ok, that is). As I need to start to be properly organised and not my usual last-minute self, I’m starting to seek out stories that I can work on from out there. What I’m hoping is that I either start in Guatemala, perhaps staying somewhere like San Pedro for a month, swing by Belize and travel extensively through Mexico, but also stay in a place or two for a few weeks each. From there, I’m hoping to travel overland through the States, making numerous stops in places like Texas, Austin and New Orleans before reaching my final destination, New York, where I may stay for a couple of weeks.
So, in the run-up, I’m looking for travel, climate/sustainability stories, and business stories across these areas. I will travelling overland from Mexico to the US so if you think there might be a story along that route, please do let me know.
Also, I’m hoping to run my workshops in these cities so if you know anyone who has run workshops in the US, please let me know.
Also, tips and routes are well received, especially from crossing the border overland to the US.
Here's what to avoid doing in media interviews
Generally, I love to chat. But when it comes to interviews, I’ll go through some level of small talk before cracking on with the interview. I had a situation recently where I was joined by several people on an interview on Zoom (not my ideal situation and I didn’t know the community manager was joining along, I’m still not sure why). Obviously there was a few tech issues to start with, and then after explaining the story, I was about to start the interview when someone suggested everyone introduce themselves properly. By then it was already about 12 minutes into the 30-minute call. The first person spoke about her background, where she had worked before. The next person spoke, again for a few minutes, so when it came to me I said, "Actually we’ve only got 15 minutes left. Could we move on with the interview?" (I had said who I was at the start of the call and explained the nature of the piece over email and the phone). No, the next person also jumped in and shared their work history. Cue squeezing in a limited number of questions.
Another recent interview involved interviewing someone who wanted to share a lot of information on their backstory. Every time I jumped in to direct the interview back to where I needed it to flow, it went off in another direction. It was interesting but I spent about four times as long as I expected on that call. Now in this instant, she was a real life interview so I needed to build her trust and I could tell she wanted to explain more about background till she was happy to share the rest.
But it made me think it might be worth sharing a few pointers to help you/your client when it comes to media interviews:
Please be mindful of how much time you have. Spending 15 minutes on your backstory in a 30-minute interview is poor etiquette. Unless a journalist asks, don’t go overboard sharing your own backstory. Many a time I have dived into an interview and then the founder want to start at the beginning (none of which might have made the cut). "For example, so when I was 15 I did GCSEs in, and then…". Make it succinct. A journalist will certainly stop and ask you if they need more on your backstory but honestly, giving us the whole working history (unless asked for), isn't needed.
Don’t make your answers longwinded. Be succinct. Practice good soundbites.
Listen to a journalist. If they’re trying to bring you back in, listen to their question – don’t continually go off on a tangent.
Also, be wary of bringing facts too much into the discussion. I spoke to someone recently who kept pulling in statistics throughout the conversation. “Well, a recent survey of ours found 43% of customers.." and so on. We want anecdotes, not continual quotes with statistics thrown at us.
Hope that helps.
I have a brilliant media training session video named How to Win at Media Interviews with media trainer Guy Clapperton here for just £14.99 if you would like to bolster your skills.
Reliving my old journalism life at a Taylor Swift concert
Last Friday night I joined almost 90,000 people to shake it off at a Taylor Swift concert. And no, it didn’t involve the usual searching online days before for a resale ticket (which is my usual way to buy my gig/festival tickets). Instead, I was offered one by a PR, thanks to a chance meeting in an east end pub three months before when he told me he had access to a box at Wembley. For the few weeks prior, I was inhaling the Eras playlist on Spotify, and then fast forward to last week, dancing in a box at Wembley. There was food, drinks, and the holy grail when there's a million girls and women - access to a toilet inside. It was total luxe even before I discovered Prince William was hanging out a couple of boxes down with his daughters.
During the evening I caught up with Daniel, the PR, and also met and hung out with the external PR (though we didn’t discuss what we did for a living till half way through the gig).
It was spectacular evening, regardless of whether you're a big Swiftie or not (tbh, I wasn't a fan until all my mates started whipping up tickets and posting about it on Instagram. Surprised that so many were into her, I started listening to her music...and found myself playing some songs on repeat).
The evening flung me back to my old life of working on a trade magazine writing about tech and the publishing industry. Back then the above was kind of the norm. There were invitations to boxes at the O2 flying through every week or so (never mind all the parties invites). It got me thinking about how when journalists leave their staff jobs to go freelance, the invites die down – drastically – despite there being, perhaps, more opportunities to work with said journalist across a range of titles. If you’re not already, it’s really worth looking at which freelancers you can invite to your next event, and no, it doesn’t need to be to see Taylor Swift [or insert any major musician]. With freelancers not having as many opportunities thrown at them, your success - and chance to build relationships - rate may be higher.
Just tell us the real answer
I recently contacted a hotel with regards to a press stay for a national newspaper.
“We don’t have availability to host a stay for you,” responded the PR.
“That's strange as I can see availability. Would May 12-14 be more suitable?”
“That is correct, we indeed have availability. But we are unfortunately not able to offer you a complimentary stay in exchange for exposure on the dates you mentioned."
"I understand* (*I don't). Which other dates are available?"
“Thank you for your understanding. But unfortunately we are not interested in your offer for the exposure. So we are therefore not able to host you.”
It took at least five emails for the truth to unfold - they simply weren’t interested. So instead of all the to-ing and fro-ing, please just say this.
If you/the company you represent don’t want to comment on a piece, don’t say you don’t have the time/can't meet the deadline because a journalist can sometimes chat to the editor and come back and extend the deadline for the right comment (this usually then results in another flaky excuse).
The MD isn’t available? Ok, sometimes we’re happy with someone lower down the chain.
Honestly, 18 years I have done this and rather than the emails back and forth and the lies, just tell us – “Sorry, we’re not interested in contributing right now.” I’d much appreciate that rather than trying to extend the deadline and come back to you, or figure out new dates for the press trip and then be declined again when actually, it wasn’t the dates that didn’t fit – it was because you/the company just didn’t want to be in the press (or in that particular title).
Why the alarm bells sound with some journorequest responses
I talk a lot about utilising #journorequest in my webinars, workshops and course, but I know as a journalist you also have to be wary of some of the responses to these. I see the same people responding to many of them. Does that person really have a story about joining a book club/being bullied/or having a comment on the latest row [or insert every niche request a journalist throws out there]….or are they lying to simply land press coverage?
I remember one particular request I put out on Twitter a while back. I’ll change it so it’s not possible to find and identity the person, but say it was along the lines of wanting to speak to someone who only buys secondhand clothes now. A woman responded saying this was something she was doing but when I checked her social media, I knew this was a lie as there were pictures and content around the purchase of new clothes.
Most of the time journalists – especially in the face of mounting cuts to budgets and teams - have a quick turnaround on stories and it’s about getting that story out there so many stories like this are not fact checked. To a certain degree, you have to believe people. Though there might be a request for evidence, depending on the journalist and the title. And then other times you have to be cynical, especially when you see the same names being quoted in articles.
Sure, we might all be able to comment on a lot of #journorequests but sometimes seeing the same names again and again makes me suspicious, especially if I look on their timeline and they’re responding to lots of them all the time.
There’s some people I have simply banned in my head from using as I believe there’s elements of fabrication. I spoke to someone the other day for another story who’d spotted my #journorequest. I called her and I could see that she was changing her story to fit into my brief.
So please, be honest. Don’t fabricate or mould your story just to get in the press. Some journalists will see through this and they may well warn others.
This is how much the average freelance journalist earns…
As regular readers know I often talk about the difficulties of being a freelance journalist and while I won’t reveal my earnings here (yet), according to a new survey, the average freelance journalist in the UK makes £27,000 per year. It also flagged that the distribution of earnings is very uneven, with the top 10% of freelancers take 37% of the total earnings pie.
Not surprising the survey of 458 journalists, which was commissioned by the UK Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) in partnership with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), found that most freelance journalists subsidise their earnings with other non-journalism work. Almost half (48%) of respondents said they spend more than 50% of their time on freelance journalism while 29% said freelance journalism was their only occupation.
I definitely used to fall into the latter camp but over the years have expanded my freelance work to include everything from media consultancy to running a content network. And renting out my home on Airbnb. Honestly, I don't know how any freelance journalists just survive on journalism alone.
One journalist told the survey: “In general, journalism has become a much more unstable and challenging profession. It is not well rewarded – and I’m one of the luckier ones. I’ve never felt secure in 35 years. Every day doing the job is a small victory.”
More on the joy of freelancing here.
A glimpse into the day of a radio producer
I’m writing this after a couple of weeks up in Salford. You all know how much I adore this (relatively new-ish) part of my career so I thought I’d give you a little insight into what goes on when I’m working at Quay House in MediaCity.
7am: Rise and shine. Although the programmes I mainly work on (Radio 4 Today and Radio 5 Wake Up to Money) start bright and early (5am and 6am respectively), I do not. There are early shifts available – starting at 4am, with a car picking you up even earlier, but I’ve politely declined those shifts so far. Though I hope to visit the studio at that time one day soon, with my intermittent insomnia, I know I’d arriving in a zombie-like state if I started that early. And so my morning starts at about 7am, with the shows running in the background while I have breakfast and get ready. There's always an element of nerves here – wondering will the guest turn up, will they sound ok on the radio – but generally it all goes to plan. Saying that, one recent guest failed to show up after leaving 'do not disturb' on their phone, meaning their alarm didn't go off and they didn't pick up when the team called. Oops.
8.45am - 9am: I'll arrive in the office and have a catch up with colleagues and quickly discuss how the shows were. I always make a round of hot drinks (and then throughout the day - I must consume about 12 cups of green tea), before reading the news across titles such as the Financial Times, Reuters, Guardian Business, and a handful of trade titles.
9.30am: Morning meeting. We’ll briefly dissect the morning shows before discussing what’s on the agenda for the next day. Here we'll chat through the backgrounds and stories of any already booked guests, any pre-recorded interviews the team have already have organised, and then discuss our story ideas.
10am: Post-meeting we’ll all assigned a story to work on. Recent pieces I've worked include a report on rising ‘priority debt’ – such as council tax, rent arrears and energy bills – and poor customer service with HMRC. For stories like these, I’ll scout out who might be best to speak to and put in bids (interview requests) with various organisations or individuals. For the tax one, I remembered a brilliant tax lawyer and barrister I'd worked with for a digital nomad piece for the Guardian. I may also fire out some #journorequests and scout around on the BBC contacts system to see who has been featured on the BBC before. If they come back yes and we’re still going ahead with the story, I’ll interview the person myself. This is called a briefing. For this, I’ll check they’re a suitable guest, prep them for the interview the next day, and try and draw out any interesting points that might be good for the presenter to focus on. There’s also organising the logistics of the interview for the next day. I’ll write up the notes and script for the presenter with background information about the sector.
1pm: Lunch. I’ll be honest, I hardly ever step outside the building. I’m terrible. Forget about vitamin D. Usually I catch up with some freelance work or with a colleague. The canteen is fantastic, with a decent selection of plant-based food. I usually opt for one of the colourful salads or soup. The hot meals are delicious and if I’m not heading out in Manchester that evening, I’ll have some kind of Mexican feast but need to be careful as I'll often feel like I want to just lie down rather than head back to the desk. (Just where are the napping stations?).
2pm: Colleagues on the late shift come in, and we'll have a team meeting to discuss the latest developments with our stories and any other stories that have emerged.
3pm-5pm: This really depends on where I am with the first story, but usually in the afternoon I'm juggling a couple of stories and am writing questions, researching another story, or interviewing another guest. There could also be a pre-record so where I interview the person in the studio over the phone or Zoom and this will be added to the programme. This also involves editing the audio and tightening up the interview so it's only two minutes. There might also be the chance for the journalist to create a quick package explaining something coming up on the show, or we might brief the economist or the whole programmes guest and fill them in on the news the presenter will want to discuss the next day.
6pm: I usually leave by about 6pm. It could be that I head upstairs to crack on with freelance work, or if the weather is good, I might walk into Manchester and have dinner with someone. Last week my pal from uni joined me for Burmese and Korean food in a buzzy foodhall near to MediaCity.
This is how long journalists can wait to get paid
Thank you for your kind words (on top of the shock) regarding the last blog post.
Perhaps I should share some upbeat news after that depressing outlook but instead I've decided to write about another downside to being a freelance journalist: payment on publication.
While most titles abide by the usual payment within 30 days of invoicing rule, some only pay up after your piece has gone to press (and then to add insult to injury, 30 days after). Yes, you may have filed that article on how workers are fighting back against low pay in February 2024 but it might not be until December 2024 when the article sees the light of day that you’re actually paid. I KID YOU NOT.
I won’t name names but you might be surprised by some of the publications that get away with this. I believe the NUJ has put pressure on publications to scrap this while other freelancers have battled against this insidious policy. Maybe I’ll apply the same principles the next time I have to pay a tradesperson. “Well, I know it’s the spring but I’m not going to put those fairy lights you've just fixed up till Christmas so I’ll pay you on December 12.” Sure. Can imagine getting away with that.
You might wonder why I’m still here. Why I’m still bashing out words for tiny amounts. Why I’m still in an industry that has increasing disregard for its workers. Well, I can’t see myself leaving. I could probably earn twice as much in another career but I absolutely adore being a journalist. What an absolute privilege it is to contact almost anyone and have them take time out of their day to talk to you, to share their story or their expertise (bar an A-list celebrity or a company you're investigating, I should add). No, I think I’ll continue. I may be pivoting and shifting things around a little to make sure I can continue to write the kind of stories I want, and while some former colleagues have made exits (and I don’t blame them, I really don’t), for me, I can’t imagine doing anything else.