Thanks for the unsolicited link to your publication's article on the "inherent dangers of that combo for a strong democracy." I don't think that's too far off what you just got done complaining about with Ms. Windrum. Didn't know you were a career counselor, too. I'm sure you wouldn't give unsolicited career advice without some sort of background in career guidance.
While I didn't do any research on CDM as I was merely responding to your blog and citing an example off the top of my head about the state of journalism, if you think you've done some great service by publishing five stories on genocide in Africa in one year, you're sadly mistaken. Hitler, dead for more than 60 years, gets more ink than that every year.
My previous reply agreed with you and Ms. Windrum and the other PR professionals on this site that she should not have sent you that embargoed press release. You deem what was sent to you as not worthwhile news. I agree with your position here, but that might be newsworthy to some publications.
The bottom line is it's up to you to use the news judgment skills you acquired in college to use or not use what was sent to you. It's an important part of your job and you are being paid to do that every day. Ms. Windrum's job is to get media placements for her clients. You're both doing your job. But you went a step further.
You could have simply written this blog about this bad PR practice and even used Ms. Windrum's example, and I would have taken no issue with you. But you used her name. Why did you decide to do that, and what did it add to the story to include it? I think you had malicious intent, and that's bad journalism, just like fake video news releases is bad PR. And while I agree with your gripe on fake TV news releases, where's the outrage in the print industry, or from your watchdog group about advertising in print publications that appears as a news story?
While you're sitting here complaining about the horrors of the Internet age (unsolicited spam from PR flacks), you are benefiting from it at the same time by using a blog to vent about bad days at work. PR professionals have a right to use the forms of communication that are available to them, and e-mail is one of them.
I have no idea how your name was acquired, but I do know that there is no way to stop that from happening. Go to Zoom Info's Web site and key in your name. I'll bet a business profile for you shows up. It freaked me out when I did it myself. That's a reality of the information age, and Ms. Windrum isn't your problem. You're her problem. When someone makes a mistake these days, look at the extent it can be magnified by someone with a keyboard and an Internet connection.
She made a mistake, and instead of you simply clicking delete and moving on to delete the rest of your spam mail, you cried bloody murder and damaged an individual's ability to make a living.
I'm sure your employer was thrilled to find you spent so much time replying to spam mail when there might have been something newsworthy to cover.
Bricub1908:
Both a journalist and a PR flack? You might want to look at our article on the [[PR and Journalism|inherent dangers of that combo for a strong democracy]].
For someone willing to label me self-righteous, you are quick to write condescendingly about "dreamers like me." Not sure how I even qualify for that title -- if I was a dreamer, I would see all those unsolicited emails -- and yes, they are, no matter how you choose to parse the word -- as worthwhile news.
You want to compare apples to apples about what constitutes unsolicited. Instead, let's compare oranges to oranges and look at how my email has ended up on these lists. Apparently it is in some PR databases, which some PR people use to send unsolicited emails to. (Ms. Windrum, and other PR people here and on other sites, have all said that is not a good practice, by the way.) So let's say you're out with friends, and someone comes up and gropes you. When you protest, they say that your name is on the bathroom wall, so you're fair game. Further, they say that if you <i>really</i> don't want to be groped, you should go to the bathroom walls and erase your name. Doesn't matter that you don't know how many walls you might be on or who wrote your name. Good dating practice? No. Good PR work? No again.
And finally, for a journalist, you certainly didn't do your homework. You don't seem to have any sense of who CMD is or what we do if you have to ask how many storied we've run about Heath Ledger's death (0) or African genocide in 2007 (5). As for focusing our attention on "the slop that's littering today's newspapers," would you be satisfied with cleaning up TV news? Our research into [[video news releases]] as fake news created by your day job compatriots in PR has led to the first ever FCC fines levied for their use. But unfortunately, your PR colleagues are fighting disclosure tooth and nail.
I am referring to your use of the word "unsolicited." As a PR professional by day and journalist by night, I hear you loud and clear on getting spammed into frustration (it happens to me at both jobs), but to go the full route that you did with your frustration is a bit overzealous if you ask me.
My reaction to your opening graph: self-righteous. I know in the blogosphere the ethics passionate journalists like yourself practice at their day jobs goes out the window, and this slanderous piece you've submitted to the World Wide Web is a prime example.
Let's compare apples to apples. You tirelessly complain about receiving "unsolicited" e-mails from Ms. Windrum in the text above. Stop and think about that for a minute. As a reporter, have you ever knocked on someone's door to get a quote from someone not seeking your presence on his/her doorstep? If you're any kind of reporter, you most certainly have. That individual may not have been appreciative of your unannounced visit, but I'll bet what made you knock is that you've got a job to do. So, too, does Ms. Windrum.
She has a duty to her clients, she sends their information on to media outlets and the media outlets make a decision on whether to use the contents of that information in their publication. But, I'll bet when Ms. Windrum gets denied by the media, she doesn't go home at the end of the day and write a whiny blog about the journalist that shot her idea down and try to pick apart that individual's professionalism and make it harder for them to make a living. You call yourself a watchdog, and I've worked in newsrooms with plenty of dreamers like you, but if you want to provide a real service to the American public, why don't you be a watchdog for the slop that's littering today's newspapers. How many stories has your publication run on Heath Ledger's death the past week and how many articles did it publish on the genocide going in across Africa in all of 2007?
If you think this blog is going to make one bit of difference in the amount of Inbox spam you receive, I'm afraid you'll have plenty more opportunity to blog on this topic.
While I agree that Ms. Windrum made an error in sending you this information, it did not warrant this sort of personal attack from you and I think you're the one that looks less ethical here.
Columbia Journalism Review has an [http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/news_director_quits_over_hospi.php interview with Glen Mabie] on their website:
Before the decision was made, there were a number of people in the newsroom that certainly didn't want to see this happen. And they're the real heroes in this, because they really stood up against this and caused enough of a ruckus about it that the proposal was ended. As far as since it's happened, it's unbelievable the amount of support I've received from people around the country. I've heard from people from as far away as California and Florida saying, "Thank you for standing up." I have to admit, I didn't think an issue like this in little ol' Eau Claire, Wisconsin, would end up being as big a deal within the industry as it seems to have become.
From the [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/business/24heart.html? New York Times]:
After a study last week showed Vytorin, an expensive combination of two drugs for cholesterol, worked no better than cheap Zocor alone in reducing artery plaque that can lead to heart attacks, the American Heart Association ... said the study was too limited to draw conclusions about Vytorin’s ability to reduce heart attacks or deaths compared to Zocor alone. The group advised patients not to abruptly stop taking it without consulting their doctors.
What the association did not note in its statement, however, was that the group receives nearly $2 million a year from Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, the joint venture that markets Vytorin.
Columbia Journalism Review has an [http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/news_director_quits_over_hospi.php interview with Glen Mabie] on their website:
From the [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/business/24heart.html? New York Times]:
Pages