It used to be a "given" that if a journalist was covering a speaker or session at an event, he or she would always mention the location of the interview and the industry organization sponsoring the event. And that's the way it should be. However, we have coordinated media relations for a variety of conferences recently and some of the business editors would cover the event as media and then write a nice story based on an interview they did or a session they attended. That is all fine and dandy, except for two instances where good articles were written based on attending the conference but no mention was made as to where the sessions or interviews were held! The story just said, "during a recent interview with so-and-so" or "according to new research just revealed"... with no mention of the conference. This is bad journalism and a bad business practice for several reasons: <ul><li> Many readers want to know where the writer conducted the interview and/or attended a session. If journalists report on a conference session they attended or interview they conducted, the obvious question is "what session were you attending and where"? It is all part of the basic journalism Who, What, Where, When format. </li> </ul><ul><li> It adds credibility to the journalist and their publication that they are active in their industry and attended an event where the industry experts were convening. This is more in-depth reporting than calling someone on the phone and interviewing them. It also allows the reporter to hear things during the presentation that they can report about in the story. They can also report on the crowd reaction and any interesting question and answer sessions. </li> </ul><ul><li> The conference organizer provided the journalist with free access while all other attendees had to pay several hundred dollars to attend. It was always a given that if a reporter was covering the event they would say "during an interview at XYZ conference". Or, the results of a new research study were revealed during the XYZ conference." There is no value to the conference organizer if a great article appears based on content gleaned from the conference but without acknowledgment of the organizer. </li> </ul><ul><li> It makes conference organizers wary of inviting media in the future if they know they will receive no mention of their event in the report. </li> </ul> I had one of the writers tell me that the attribution was in the story she submitted but that her editor took it out due to space restrictions. If so, shame on the editor - find some other words to cut. In summary, not mentioning the event in post-conference reporting breaks an unspoken bond between the organizer and journalist that "if you come, we expect you will mention the conference in your coverage." I know there are several journalists who read this blog - so please let me know if you don't agree.
