Since my retirement I have been working part time doing public relations work. Last week I went to a public information officer conference in Saginaw.
During one of our break out sessions I was talking to a public relations person for a non-profit organization in Grand Rapids. She related the frustration of the new reality of newspaper reporting.
The hospital she works for had for years had a dedicated health reporter that covered it. Things went along well and with the relationships that built up stories were done that were accurate and timely.
Not so anymore, she said. Now, it's a roll of the dice that on a day-to-day basis the hospital will even know who is responsible for health coverage. Often they get a different reporter each time there is a story, she said.
That has created a situation where there have been many errors in stories, both online and in print. Corrections are made online, but without any mention of the previous error.
The woman said she has had a number of conversations with the editor of the Grand Rapids Press, but there seems little hope that it will be better any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The former health reporter at the Grand Rapids Press was a top-notch journalist and one of many fine reporters, photographers and editors who have left Booth through buyouts in the past couple of years.
But the practice of reporters moving in and out of beats is nothing new. It's been going on for decades.
I work in the Genesee and Saginaw areas in news, and it's been a surprise all the events neither the Journal nor News have been out to cover. Oh well...
While acknowledging the world-class ability (yes, I said world-class) of the former GRP health reporter, I'd challenge this PIO/PR person's assertions of a recent influx of multiple errors and the failure to correct both online and in print.
And, Jim, you know as well as the rest of the print people that you don't restate the error while correcting it. That's standard correction procedure.
Anyhoo, if it were such a catastrophe, this anonymous person surely would have contacted the editor who oversees health coverage and complained of such problems.
As a GRP newsroom employee, I can tell you this has not happened.
If the PIO/PR person doesn't know who's covering the hopsital/institution/non-profit, or the immediate editor, I'd say she has as much of a problem, if not more than, the paper does. It's part of her job to know this or to figure it out. There may not be one dedicated person (yes, that's a problem, but a reality across all beats) but there are surely regulars.
I can also say unequivically that the woman who regularly covers health issues is an excellent reporter in her own right.
Pehaps you should ask how this PIO/PR person appreciated the scrutiny from the previously mentioned reporter before he opted to take the buyout. There were multiple complaints because he was too aggressive, asked too many questions and didn't readily accept the answers given to him.
Jim, have you put on the blinders that are associated with the PR world, those being if the story isn't exactly what you pitch or what you desire, that it is inaccurate or wrong?
Do you have any history with said PIO/PR person to know the veracity of her statements? Maybe you do, but if not it seems irresponsible of a former print reporter to throw out these accusations based on a single conversation at a flak conference.
All complaints with this post aside, I will say you did write a hell of an obit on your former father-in-law.
Take care.
I don't edit stuff that is critical of my point of view here. Actually I welcome it. I don't have all the answers, but I have a lot of opinions so you don't have to apologize in disagreeing with me.
I was simply reporting what the PR person told a roomful of folks at a seminar.
She claimed to have visited with the editor about the mistakes, but I didn't press the issue.
If you say there have been no complaints, I'll take your word for it.
Thanks for the kind words about the obit.
Post a Comment