Andrew Losowsky

Free lunch (courtesy of our sponsor)

24 June 2002. 1 comment. Inspired by .

To freebie or not to freebie? That, for many journalists and PRs, is the killer question.

Click on MORE... for a discussion of the ethics

The New Statesman this week has an interesting article by Anthony Browne about corruption among UK journalists. He argues that although direct bribery is rare, PR companies spend millions of pounds carefully targetting and then influencing the opinions of those writers who are perceived as being influential.

Of course, this is rarely in the form of Zakazukha, or paying to print a press release (a wonderful word we have the Russians to thank for). Journalistic codes the world over have no qualms about denouncing bribery, but freebies remain a grey area. Is it possible to influence a journalist through judicious use of free gifts/holidays? "Of course," said one tech pr friend of mine (a former journo). "Trying to bribe a journo is a definite no-no - but a cool freebie often gets you coverage where you might not usually get it," according to another pr. For some travel journalists, it may be the more aware of this in travel writing than in other forms of journalism - reviews usually declare the travel agent and airline the writer travelled with, a tacit implication that the trip was not free. Apart from Conde Nast Traveller (which has the luxury of always being able to pay its own way), if the writer receives nothing for free, it is sometimes even highlighted as a selling point of the piece.

Unsurprisingly, technical journalism is especially afflicted by the giving and receiving of free stuff, even if it's just on loan - and equally unsurprisingly, some prs have real problems getting journos to return their 'gifts' post-review, as this piece shows.

When a PR knows they have a great product, then there's no problem. Journalists (and their children) were clamouring for tickets to the Harry Potter launch, or for pre-release X-Box's, or for a test drive of the latest TVR. But problems can arise - for example, if a cricket-mad business writer accepts tickets from BT to watch the Test Match at Lord's, while overseeing a covert investigation into their business practices. Many feel that if journalists and editors feel their writing and publications should be seen as objective and beyond suspicion, so should their actions (as Browne argues).

John Pilger certainly views the freebie culture within journalism as more sinister than just a perk of the job that has no impact on a writer's objectivity.

The NUJ code of conduct (by its very nature) is non-specific on the matter. "A journalist shall not accept bribes nor shall he/she allow other inducements to influence the performance of his/her professional duties," reads point 8 - which doesn't help clarify the grey areas discussed above. The Australian newspaper is a little more detailed in its code: " 'Journalists must not request or accept any money, travel, goods, discounts, entertainments or inducements of any kind outside of normal business hospitality"

The Guardian is currently the only UK newspaper with a more carefully targetted edict concerning this matter, within its Editorial Code, launched in February this year.

"The Guardian and its staff will not allow any payment, gift or other advantage to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. Any attempts to induce favourable editorial treatment through the offer of gifts or favours should be reported to the Editor. Where relevant the Guardian will disclose these payments, gifts or other advantages... Gifts of other than an insignificant value - say, more than £25 - should be politely returned or may be entered for the annual raffle of such items for charity, "the sleaze raffle".

A couple of years ago, The Sydney Herald newspaper listed the freebies and junkets journalists had accepted in the previous week. It made revealing reading: eight reporters had dined at the expense of a company; nine had attended an all-expenses-paid promotional ball, others had flown to Hong Kong, Amsterdam, France or New York at the cost of the people who were the intended subjects of their stories. There's an interesting discussion of the issues facing the Australian media here.

Different countries do have different traditions in dealing with the media as a business. According to P.V. Narasimham, the General Manager of the Industrial Development Bank of India, "Gifts to journalists are a mark of social relationship and goodwill and one must look at the motive behind them without looking down upon them as bribes. You can take the gift and still write what you wish." However, not all the journalists in his country seem to agree. And, in any case, when it comes to big business and politics, is it down to the journalists at all? (See the NUJ of India's reply to a critical piece here)

Clearly, 99.9% of PRs and Press Officers aren't the scum of the earth. They aren't out to corrupt and inveigle, and they know that anything that smacks of inducement can be massively counterproductive for both them and their client. But many of these questions occupy that difficult grey area where it comes down to personal morality depending on the situation - and each journalist should feel that they are completely certain what theirs is.

Further discussions on this topic can be found here and here

UPDATE: A number of senior newspaper editorial staff recently turned down tickets to the World Cup from BT, with Sun and Daily Mail journos changing their mind at the eleventh hour, probably following adverse publicity in the Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Times. More information here.