I’m curious as to BB’s policy regarding free samples from PR companies.

Do you keep all the gadgets, games and dvd’s that PR people send you?

Do you hoard them, resell them, or give them as gifts? If so, aren’t you compromising your journalistic integrity, and fostering biases towards certain brands?

I ask this because you seem so quick to get on the high road when it comes to the subject of PR. I wonder if you apply the same lofty ideals to the handling of free giveaways.

When you’re in the tech/culture you’re going to get lots of emails and lots of free stuff. That’s the beauty and the pain of the industry.

If you’re annoyed by PR spam, but keep free gifts, you’re a a hypocrite and lousy journalist.

Can your head be turned by trinkets? If not, why do you assume others won’t have the same reaction?

People who are listed as magazine editors get snowed under by press releases. Publicists compile lists of them, which they copy and swap and otherwise propagate. Lazy publicists are like spammers: it doesn’t cost them anything more to send a piece of mail to hundreds of inappropriate addresses. After all, it’s not their time they’re wasting.

Hasn’t made any noticeable difference… until I check the logs and see that I turn away more than 6000 messages for every one I actually read.

–Charlie

Quite educational.

Hr’s rpst:

ws gng t pst ths ndr th ndrw Kn rtcl, bt th cnsr hs DSLLWD CMMNTS N THT NTRY n rdr t prtct th BngBng thrs frm frthr mbrrssmnt.

Tht’s hw cmmnts wrk hr. Thy nly llw th cmmnts thy lk. (By th cmmntrs wh gr wth thm. srs flw f nln cmmnts, by th wy, whch ws pntd t by ndrw Kn n hs bk.)

#

“Y cn’t ps s thghtfl cltrl crtc whn y gt tht mny fcts wrng”

Wht fcts dd h gt wrng?

Y clm tht h gt ths fct wrng, bt h ddn’t. Mrks nvr wrkd s prfssnl jrnlst.

hvn’t sn NY vld crtcsm f ndrw Kn n ths blg. ll s s bnch f fnbys wh gt thr ttts twstd.

Th Dly Ks s lftwng prpgnd rgn nd nthng mr. Th fct tht t’s s ftn lnkd by thr blgs ds nt gv th blg mrt–t gvs ll blgs blck y. f hd t nm n xmpl f why thnk “nws” blgs r jk, t wld b th dly spmmng f Dly Ks lnks by msgdd pltcl ctvsts.

*Prprng fr grblztn nd bnnng.*

Heh.

And judging by the temperment of the posts in that particular thread, I’d suggest it was closed to prevent a flame war from erupting, a sensible course of action.

/just sayin

Chipslug:

Mark opened this can of worms, not me.

Hogwash and codswallop. Mark did nothing of the sort. He wrote about his new policy for people who send him inappropriate press releases. That has nothing to do with random PR tat.

Furthermore, your basic premise is wrong. “You may not accept anything from anybody” is a characteristic newspaper employee policy, used by newspapers to keep their underpaid employees on the straight and narrow. No way is it a general rule in other neighborhoods of the publishing industry.

I’ve never once asked the boingers what they do with PR tat. However, I do know lots and lots of reputable editors, reviewers, freelance writers, publicists, agents, and members of related species. Insofar as they can be said to have a policy about PR freebies, it’s “Unsolicited merchandise is the property of the recipient.” Trade fiction editors will explicitly tell you that you can send any darn thing you want, as long as you understand that it won’t make a bit of difference. Reviewers commonly sell off review copies of books.

All of those people are irritated by PR spam. I estimate that pretty much all of them have kept at least a few PR freebies. Does that mean they’re hypocrites? Does it mean that the journalists among them are lousy journalists?

It does not. It never has. Your formulation–

“If you’re annoyed by PR spam, but keep free gifts, you’re a a hypocrite and lousy journalist.”

–is entirely your own invention, having neither tradition nor authority behind it. You’re puffing yourself up by pretending that it’s a rule of the universe, when the only thing backing it up is your credibility.

How far does your credit stretch? Not nearly that far. We don’t know your real name. We don’t know whether you’ve actually been a professional journalist. And if we did know all that stuff, you still wouldn’t have the standing to demand information, or accuse the editors of dishonesty when you don’t immediately receive it.

There is a big huge sign on the wall in the sales dept. at the tech company I work at that says “TARGET THE CUSTOMER. AVOID ‘SPRAY AND PRAY’”.

Good advice. Too bad so many PR/pitchfolk out there are obviously not taking it.

I’ve seen some abuse of authority and vindictiveness on the part of the moderators, but this really puts you and Wired into a new class. WTF?!?

I worked as a tech reporter for several years at a major Canadian newspaper, and we had a very strict policy about not accepting freebies.

The thinking behind this blanket policy is fairly obvious: when company X gives a gift to a media outlet, that media outlet becomes indebted, and a relationship has been forged. The debt is not necessarily repaid with a glowing review. In fact, a journalist may write a negative review as a kind of subconscious affirmation of their own integrity — a kind of backlash against the seediness of accepting a blatant perk.

Either way, in accepting a freebie, the journalist can only proceed with clouded judgement, if only in the slightest degree.

I know of tech reporter who make up 30 per cent of their income through re-selling freebies on ebay. After ten years of receving free gear from companies like Nintendo, Canon, and Panasonic, can we truly believe that he reports on those brands without bias?

I think BB readers are entitled to know BB’s policy about on PR freebies. This site fights for transparency and full disclosure in other realms, and I’d very much like to see these same principles turned the other way.

I only make a point of this in light of Mark’s whiny post about PR people. He suggests that publicity annoy him with their spam. How does he feel about them when they send pressies?

Please employ the lofty principles you preach, and enlighten us as to BB’s policy towards accepting freebies.

Thank you,
Chris

Note: We saw tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear come through our office each year. The tech/media reporters would the stuff them for a trial basis, then it would be resold, with proceeds going to charity.

It’s a peculiar sort of “libertarianism” that regards other people as public utilities.

What many people who use such lists don’t realize is that they really don’t work because lazy spamming to the whole list with PR releases has just made PR releases be considered more spam.

I wouldn’t be nice to see what crap flows into the mailboxes of the US Governors, Senators, and Congress critters, because their emails are often included in lists of “opinion leaders”.

Here’s what I want to know: are there any current or former professional editors in this discussion who don’t understand why Mark Frauenfelder and Chris Anderson have this policy?

I sure liked having comments reinstated on BoingBoing. Too bad there’s such a brain damaged minority working so hard to have them eliminated again.

That’s all. No more parade.

Why are some posters (PR hacks, cough…) here having a problem with that, I wonder?

I figure the worst that could happen is that prppl will have to go through proper channels to contact WIRED, etc. instead of mindlessly spamming JAE (Just Any Email).

I sincerely doubt that will damage the “credibility” of WIRED as a media outlet. Those PR blitzes will surely reach the MSM anyway… I think last I checked seventy some percent and higher of MSM news stories are based on PR copypasta. It’s refreshing to see a media outlet that bucks that trend to some extent maybe.

But, anyway, remember… like waterspan.com said, there is a web 3.0 app coming around the corner and pre-sales start fricken’ NOW… now… now….

I think that would be useful information for PR people, people in the media, and most importantly, readers.

Mark opened this can of worms, not me.

n th tch-md wrld thr r lts f pltcs srrndng fr hnd-ts. Wh gts m, wh kps, wh’s phn wrthy, nd wh sn’t. Y’r smrt prsn, nd knw y knw ths s tr.

thnk t’s n ntrstng sbjct, nd t rlts vry drctly t th sbjct f th md’s rltnshp wth th PR lmnt, whch s th thm f th rgnl pst.

f BBrs ccpt fr gr nd cmcs nd dvds n rglr bss, shld b bl t cnsdr thr rvws wth tht n mnd.

ws smply crs bt BB’s tk n ths. Bt bsd n yr rspnss, thnk cn rd btwn th lns nd gt prtty gd pctr fr myslf.