A professional’s worth is not defined by organisational size, designation, influence, or favours, but by the quality of work, credibility, integrity, and professional conduct, says Priyabrat Biswal

 

There was a time when a journalist was treated simply as a journalist. Today, sadly, a section of the corporate communication fraternity seems to look first at the logo on a journalist’s visiting card — and only then decide whether the person deserves a meeting, a phone call, a response or even basic professional courtesy.

How big is the media house? What is its reach? How influential is the journalist? How many followers does he have? Can he deliver visibility for the company? Increasingly, these questions appear to matter more than professional experience, credibility and relationships built over years. This is not an indictment of the entire PR fraternity. I have known several outstanding communication professionals who understand that relationships are built on mutual respect, not hierarchy. But the disturbing trend among a section of the fraternity deserves attention.

Recently, I experienced both sides of this changing culture. After more than two decades in print journalism, I now head a news portal. I had gone to meet the corporate communication head of a large corporate house at Fortune Tower in Bhubaneswar. Since several corporate houses operate from the same complex, I decided to make courtesy calls on a few communication professionals I had known for years. A telecom company’s communication professional gave me considerable time, even skipping an important celebration in his office to continue our conversation. A communication professional from a PSU also spent quality time with me, exchanged ideas and introduced me to his colleagues. Such people remind you that professional courtesy is still alive.

Then came another experience. I called a communication professional of a private steel company. He did not take the call but sent an SMS asking me to text him. I informed him that I was already in the complex and wanted to meet him. There was no response. I waited for about half an hour and left. He may have been genuinely busy, and that is understandable. Corporate communication professionals, like journalists, have demanding schedules. But a simple message saying he was unavailable would hardly have taken a minute. The issue is not about expecting anyone to drop everything for a journalist; it is about basic courtesy towards another professional who has made the effort to reach out.

On Saturday, a senior official of the Bhubaneswar chapter of a professional education institute called me to ask whether I had received an invitation to an event being organised that day. I had not. He apologised and personally invited me, but I politely declined. He told me the name of the freelance PR professional hired to manage their event. The irony was difficult to miss: I had introduced that very freelancer, whom I have known for 15 years, to the senior official. It was another reminder of how professional relationships can sometimes be valued differently depending on what they can deliver at a particular moment.

Many journalists will recognise another familiar pattern. Communication professionals of large corporates sometimes neither answer calls nor respond to messages. But publish a factual report concerning the company that they do not like, and suddenly the communication machinery becomes extraordinarily efficient. The phone rings. Messages arrive. Explanations are demanded. Perhaps the deeper problem is the commodification of media relations. Some professionals appear to maintain two lists: journalists who are “important” and those who are not. But not every journalist works for a national media conglomerate, has millions of followers or carries a famous corporate logo.

A small media organisation can have a big journalist. A big media organisation can have an ordinary one. The logo does not determine professional worth.

But journalists must also look within. Some become excessively demanding, authoritative or entitled because they believe their profession gives them power. They expect favours, special treatment, access or preferential information, and sometimes use the implied threat of negative coverage to get what they want. That is equally unacceptable. Being a journalist does not confer the right to intimidate a communication professional, and a press card is certainly not a licence to demand undue favours.

Respect cannot be demanded by one side while being denied by the other. A journalist does not have a divine right to a meeting, just as a PR professional does not have an obligation to answer every call immediately. A missed call, delayed response or refusal to meet is perfectly legitimate. What is difficult to justify is a culture in which courtesy appears to increase or decrease according to the size of the media logo, the journalist’s follower count or the commercial value attached to the relationship.

The PR profession is, at its core, about building bridges. Those bridges should not be built only with the biggest media houses and most influential journalists. Journalists, too, must remember that bridges work both ways. Communication professionals deserve respect for their time and responsibilities; journalists deserve respect for their professional work, irrespective of the logo on their visiting card. Professionalism must be reciprocal: respect the journalist when he calls, and respect the communication professional when he cannot immediately respond. Challenge facts when they are wrong, disagree when necessary — but do so respectfully.

Do not measure a journalist by the size of his organisation. And do not measure a communication professional by how many favours he can provide. In the end, neither the logo nor the designation defines professional worth. It is the work, the credibility and the conduct that matter.

 

The author may be reached at [email protected]