Key Topic 2: Interaction with Journalists
Generally the same rules apply to interactions with journalists as for members of the public -they must not be sent promotional information.
Companies are responsible for information that they (or third parties acting on their behalf) provide to journalists, by whatever means. They are not necessarily responsible for articles that journalists write in response to this information, provided that there is no further involvement of the company (such as paying a fee for the article to be written etc)
Most commonly interactions with journalists occur through press conferences.
Other activities such as media advisory boards and virtual newsrooms are acceptable provided that they comply with the relevant regulations (Advisory Boards are dealt with in a separate module).
Press Conferences
When the company has an important message to communicate it may be appropriate to convene a press conference.
There are clear rules:
- Hospitality must not be excessive
- Journalists cannot be paid to attend
- AstraZeneca does not pay travel expenses for journalists except under limited circumstances - see Standard Giving and Receiving Items of Value
- The press conference must meet usual rules for balance, fairness, etc, and be completely non-promotional
- Presenters and spokespersons should be briefed not to promote products
- All material must be approved in advance
Consider this example
Invitation to journalists
A PR company in the UK acting on behalf of Janssen Cilag sent an email to journalists inviting them to attend a public National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) appeal hearing. The email said:
“As it is possible that the hearing will take up most of the day, and we understand that your time is valuable, we are able to offer £200 (Euro 293) if you wish to attend”
Which of the following do you agree with?
- If this payment is considered ‘fair market value’ for a journalist then it is acceptable
- Offering journalists a payment purely to attend a meeting is unacceptable
- Paying journalists fair market value to contribute to an advisory board is acceptable
- The company (Janssen Cliag) is not responsible for these arrangements as they were made by a third party
Ruling
This case came to the attention of the PMCPA in the UK because it was the subject of an article in a public journal referring to a ‘media cash carrot’. NICE condemned the offer of payments to journalists in their own press release – their Chairman stated ‘it is disappointing that a PR firm finds it necessary to offer financial incentives for journalists to attend NICE public appeal hearings’.
Janssen Cilag were held responsible for the actions of their PR agency and were found to be in breach of the UK Code. Among the breaches, they were found in breach of clause 2 – bring discredit upon, and reducing confidence in the pharmaceutical industry. They appealed this ruling and were unsuccessful.
