Arthur Brisbane, The New York Times‘ public editor, wants feedback. After publishing a column detailing the limits placed on David Pogue‘s speaking engagements with the PR industry, he says he got both praise and criticism; praise for setting boundaries, criticism for how he portrayed publicists.
In the original column, Brisbane wrote, “Times readers deserve to be assured that journalists don’t get too cozy with the P.R. professionals who strive to influence coverage. A virtual army of publicists, media specialists and others stands ready every day to infiltrate the news with stories that help their employers.”
In his appeal for comment, he writes that some thought he may not fully get the role of publicists at The Times.
He asks two very pointed questions of the PR industry (the first one is two-part): “What are the benefits that publicists and P.R. professionals can provide to The Times? Are there any problems? How easy or difficult is The Times to work with compared to other news organizations?”
There’s no deadline for comment so if you have any thoughts on the subject, here’s your chance to write a few well-thought-out sentences to contribute to the conversation. We already see a couple of familiar names in the comments section and there are some interesting takes on the issue being posted.
- What We Should All Learn From Edelman's Commitment to Become Its Own Client
- Ferguson, MO Hires Common Ground Public Relations
- #PRFail: NBC Strikes Out on Meet the Press Announcement
- Uber Takes Shots at Lyft In Press Statement Addressing Alleged Cancellation Shenanigans