By Jamie Elliott
Jamie Elliott is a freelance journalist and volunteers for Community Links.
The media has an insatiable appetite for real life drama – ‘authentic’ case studies to bring a story to life. Whether a news item is about the failings of the health service or dangerous dogs, every news editor demands their hard pressed reporters produce a ‘real’ person – ideally with a picture – to illustrate the story. Many perfectly good stories never see the light of day because a case study can’t be found or drops out at the last minute.
Half a journalist’s time – especially in radio and TV – can sometimes be taken up trying to hunt down and nurture this illusive but valuable prize.
And when it comes to reporting stories about poorer people and those on benefits, most journalists are reliant on charities for access to ‘real people’ – they can’t rely on their own generally middle class friends and networks to come up with the goods as they might do otherwise.
Horror stories of poorer people being misrepresented as ’scroungers’ or helpless victims, and robbed of their dignity, are often the fault of foolish, bigoted or just incompetent journalists.
But not always.
Sometimes the charities and helping organisations who claim to represent those at the bottom of the social pecking order inadvertently contribute to the problem. Sometimes they are simply lazy – unwilling to do the work needed to help disadvantaged people represent themselves fairly. But no less frequently they take an overly protective and frankly patronising approach which assumes that unlike them, poorer people are incapable of ‘handling the media’ and making their case coherently. In this way they rob the people they claim to represent of the chance of having their voice heard.
At the same time this approach makes it far less likely that journalists will be able to give an authentic account of the problem or issue the charity may be trying to get across.
The overly protective charities will often offer journalists anonymous case studies which only use first names or have no names attached to them at all. If you dig deeper, you will often find that they have not asked the people concerned (whom they usually refer to as ‘clients’ or ’service users’) whether they would be happy for their name to be used or to speak to journalists directly. They’ve simply decided what is best and done it.
Interestingly, charities working in the developing world abandoned this practice decades ago. The importance of naming case studies in full to confer dignity and a sense of their individual importance has been an article of faith with organisations like Oxfam and Christian Aid for many years. But UK charities persist in naming their chief executive in full on every press release whilst routinely referring to their real person case study as ‘Bob’ or ‘Mary (not her real name)’.
If you were going to be in the paper or on telly would you want to appear without your real name? Maybe. But maybe not. And you would certainly want to be asked.
So yes the media are sometimes to blame for unbalanced or downright offensive portrayals of people on low incomes. But sometimes the well meaning (and sometimes less well meaning) organisations working on behalf of these groups need to take some responsibility as well.
[...] public assumptions about what we can positively achieve if we work together [great debate going on over here about [...]
[...] the other hand, perhaps charities have to shoulder some of the blame for being overly hostile towards those journalists who are genuinely interested, and even promoting [...]
…and then of course there are the calls from reality shows’ (of which I’m getting more and more) to “reflect diversity” (sometimes questionable in its intent).
‘Annabelle Fuller, of the Army Benevolent Fund, told the newspaper: “We’re a charity, not a selection box for bad TV programmes. The people we help are often vulnerable.”‘
http://bit.ly/dbvRJ3
Absolutely Jamie & Andy – I don’t mean to ‘blame’ journos, as I know there are issues with editorial line / policy or just scissor-happy sub-eds
I think you’re hit the nail on the head with the word ‘relationships’. It really is about PRs and journalists both doing the legwork, meeting somewhere in middle. And the lived experiences of real people being at the forefront.
There’s a great little book (now out of print but still online as a pdf) that the Voluntary Action Media Unit put together in 2007/8 called Clever Communications. It contains some sound case studies and illustrative examples of best practice. Here’s a link to it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17742826/Clever-Communications
I’ve enjoyed this debate – great post.
Some interesting points. As a BBC news reporter and former Social Action producer for one of the coutry’s biggest voluntering charities, I’ve worked with dozens of volcomm sector organisations over the years as a media trainer encouraging them to ‘exploit’ (in the best sense of the word) the the potential for maximizing their message , by involving and using their beneficiaries, users, volunteers and supporters. Often, we as journalists can only ’stand a story up’ if we can get a real life case study or someone with subjective experience of an issue to speak or be interviewed. it’s the same now in news every day we look at programme priorities and of the 400 press releases BBC local radio & TV receives every day you’d expect us to resist the demands for us to be used a ’soapbox’ for paid officials, politicians, press officers, PR agencies with out hearing from ‘real people’ – wouldn’t you. Fortunately, the relationships I have forged with our ‘contacts’ have been fruitful and benficial to both sides and continue to develop and expand…….
Having been on both sides of the fence I agree it’s really annoying when the charity who has put in the work to organise and support a case study – and it can involve an awful lot of work – doesn’t get a mention in the finished article or broadcast.
But sometimes it’s not the individual journalist at fault but the editor or sub-editor, who cuts out the mention of the charity – or more often their quote – because space is tight. So when journalists say – ‘I’m really sorry and I did include you in the original story’ they may be telling the truth and feel almost as frustrated as you do. Most journalists don’t want to upset the charities they are working with, not least because they may need to come to them again for case studies in the future.
Hear hear to much of the above. Also, some people are happy to be interviewed but don’t want their real name used if they are talking about a mental health condition, for example.
After all, you can’t blame people for not wanting to tell the world and his wife about living with schizophrenia, say, if they haven’t told their neighbours.
I have had great and terrible experiences of working as a PR with journalists on case studies. The best journos, from a charity’s point of view, recognise that it’s good manners to give 10 words of their story to mention the charity that made it happen. It also gives the reader/listener somewhere to go for help if they need it.
that’s a shocking example of abusing the tools of communication that people use nowadays to express themselves. A comment on this post http://www.community-links.org/linksuk/?p=1385&cpage=1#comment-702 is much more positive and shows that individuals are very keen to come forward, and blogging can be the right way to reach them, but as you pointed out above Rob, this can be risky as the internet is an open space and anything put up on it risks being manipulated…
Some very salient and important points there Maeve – very good advice re journalists ‘getting out there’ and doing the legwork.
What I fear is – and understandable given the state of the industry particulary at a local level – is journalists have less time / are fewer in numbers to do this. Which could be why I am noticing a huge influx of journos on social media, scouring blogs and reaching out to communities virtually for stories and interviewees. Did you see, however, the appalling practice of the Irish Mail on Sunday this week where they wholesale stole blog copy and pictures to create a story? http://bit.ly/c6Mxlc This is a very good reason why, as you suggest, journalists need to get out there and meet people.
Some really fair points here, and having been a journalist I totally understand where you are coming from, however I think that it’s not always as simple as PROs not being helpful. It’s worth remembering that many of the people that charities in all sectors deal with are extremely vulnerable, so what seems like over protectiveness is often just genuine concern for their welfare. Charity PROs would always (i would hope!) like to be able to help and but are not always in a position to share a story when it might involve revealing someone’s very personal and painful circumstances – more often than not when they are at their most vulnerable. Particularly, as Maeve rightly says, just for the sake of a bit of publicity for the charity…or at the risk of being accused of blatant exploitation of the people we try to support…
Interesting discussion Jamie and Rob! There is a lot of tension between the media and small grassroots charities about this issue. From experience of working alongside the most vulnerable I feel that I had an obligation to support the families I worked with the best I could and also not to take advantage of their situation for the sake of a campaign or particular message I wanted raised in the media. I see your point Jamie but I also believe that if a person cares deeply about, say their children living in poverty, or unfair employment practices then yes I should support them as much as possible to get heard about that. However there is a moral twinge in me every time a journalist asks if I can find the person specification to fit their story- the story has already been covered – its not that persons story, that’s the difference. Also I have met one really good journalist for the Times who went out of their way to build relationships with people and hear their stories, leaving the pen and paper at home in the beginning. He had a great source of case studies as a result and they trusted him. Journalists should be given the time from their editors – and encouraged by their editors to go out and find the people and their stories themselves, not recruit people through charities. Rob as much as Askcharity sounds effective and efficient it shouldn’t take away the need to put in the leg work which is more sustainable and the media will get to the real stories that way – old fashioned journalism people relate to!! Once I set up a meeting with a mother and a journalist and the first thing she asked before the interview was ‘so what is it you want me to say here, what point am I supposed to be making?’ which wasn’t at all empowering for her
True Will. Sometimes it’s forgetfulness, but sometimes it’s where communications is considered an ‘add-on’ rather than integral to the organisation. This can be the case in our sector; to persuade senior management that comms needs to be at the heart of operations, as it might be in a corporate firm.
I’d say things are changing, but it can be tough if you are a lone voice or a small team. We’re getting better as a sector – and there are lots of people sharing best practice; on Twitter, in facebook groups, at events such as media140 on the 4th Feb in London (plug plug).
I agree Rob, charity PRs need to work with, not against journalists. I think part of the problem can often be within the charity itself, where the PR forgets to convince their own colleagues of the benefits of press coverage, but assumes they’ll be willing to help.
This often isn’t the case – staff working outside the press office can be uninterested or even downright suspicious of the media, and convincing them of its importance is just as vital as communicating well with journalists.
Hi Jamie, some fair and well raised points here.
I can see both sides having spent a very small stint on a placement at BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours, and being a charity PRO since 2004; I certainly appreciate your frustration!
As a PR I understand that without real, lived-experience stories there will never be a change in the assumptions made of disabled people, homeless people, older people, socially excluded people (and so on); but first and foremost charities I’m afraid aren’t ‘case study banks’ for the media – they are set up to provide a service missing from the public sector (hence ’service users’).
So you will sometimes find that there is an internal struggle that charity PRs find just as frustrating as journalists as we balance between maintaining the dignity, privacy – but at the same time empowerment – of the people that are being supported by our organisations.
A great deal of PRs – myself included – have been burned by journos, as charities’ primary raison d’etre is usually to raise funds and awareness to carry on our work. So it is disheartening to us when a journalist takes their meaty case study and then…leaves out the charity’s name or contact details. It makes us feel a little ‘used’ and doesn’t help build confidence with beneficairies that – after all – want the charity to get a plug too as they have benefited from our work.
Each case will be different, and you’re right – there should be more compromise on both sides to a) help the charity to alter public preconception, and b) support the journalist to craft the best / fairest story they can.
The biggest misconception in charity press offices is that PRs and journalists are somehow working at odds. I think it’s essential that we work together from the conception of a story to gain trust and make the difference we are all striving to make.
Have you tried using AskCharity? http://askcharity.org.uk/ – this is a service run by CharityComms (disclosure: I am a board member at CC) that allows journalist (for free) to send email requests to hundreds of charities – outlining what they are looking for for a particular story. The charities signed up to recieve these alerts get the request and can proactively give you a call with their best case studies. It seems to work well.
Best of luck, and thanks for raising this point. It’s only be learning from each other that PRs can raise their game and use examples like this to raise leverage internally.
Rob