You want to make it big in journalism today? Then make it about you.

That's right. Make it about you rather than the actual story you're covering, the publication or news outlet you work for, or -- God forbid -- your audience.

Call it the Kanye West Guide to Journalistic Advancement.

Yes, it's egocentric -- even narcissistic. But in a environment where legacy news organizations offer little in the way of job security, and where everyone under 30 who's not famous seems to see themselves in a perpetual state of "pre-celebrity," it's only natural that individual journalists would increasingly view themselves as brands that need to be nurtured. Brands that demand shelf space in the form of TV face time, Internet followings and other career enhancers.

This "personal branding" approach to journalism has certainly worked like a charm for Julia Allison, the young journalist who first attracted attention with her affair with then-Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., which some claim helped to cost him a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2006.

Now, at 26, she's the toast of New York as a magazine writer and on-air commentator on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, E! and elsewhere. Although ridiculed by the New York Press as a "Faming Asshole," Julia's template for success is obviously an effective one.

For that formula in a nutshell, check out her blog. Or her photoblog. Or details of her romantic breakups (including e-mail exchanges) on other blogs. Or just read Gawker, where her every self-promotional effort is lovingly chronicled.

I'm sure the journalism and communications students I occasionally speak with are far more impressed by Julia's roadmap to success than any drivel I can tell them about the Five Ws, Edward R. Murrow, and the founding fathers' vision of the role of the fourth estate.

Like it or not, Julia's dream is their dream today.

Forget the Five Ws. Today's journalism is increasingly about one letter -- "I."

I should add that I don't blame Julia for her fame. She's a talented writer and obviously a driven person. I can't begrudge her success any more than I can blame Britney Spears for the amount of coverage she receives.

She doesn't control it, after all. The rest of us do.

Labels: journalism, Julia Allison, Media News

I recently got an e-mail from a reporter friend who has decided to change careers and move into public relations. Even though he has almost completed his MBA, his initial attempts to find a PR job have fallen flat; he hasn't even been able to get an interview. Here's his theory as to why he's having such a hard time:

The best PR people I deal with are in big corporations with departments full of ex-reporters. And these are companies I write some of the most critical stories about. But those guys understand my job.

Most PR people I deal with, however, are completely clueless about my job. My theory is that most PR people or the hiring managers bringing in PR people are actually scared of a reporter coming in.

One of the companies I applied to had a big discrimination lawsuit and that's all that's been written about them. Am I screwed in the job market because reporters are feared? Or worse, as I've feared -- execs think we are incapable of anything else?

Unfortunately, I don't think my friend is being paranoid (even though that is a speciality of journalists.)

Many people in business simply don't understand reporters. They don't understand their motivations for going into journalism, and they worry they won't be able to thrive -- or even be happy -- in a corporate setting.

Reporters in general, and especially newspaper reporters, don't enter the profession of journalism for a quick buck. Their egos are fed not by the money they make, but by the impact they have. Journalists have impact by covering controversy and causing change -- two things that frighten most corporations, which are essentially conservative institutions.

Being "negative" (as most corporate hiring managers would define that term) is a big part of the job of most reporters. And hiring managers are taught to screen out negative people.

You see, there are no "problems" in corporate America -- only "challenges." And though the media loves to celebrate the corporate maverick, the reason we celebrate them is because they're so few and far between. Most people get ahead in business by not making waves -- the same kind of waves that reporters are trained (and, in some cases, born) to make.

A couple years ago, a recruiter for a Fortune 500 company contacted me about a senior VP position reporting to the CEO. Even though I love the Idea Grove, I decided to take the interview. If nothing else, perhaps it could lead to some consulting work.

When I met with the overly enthusiastic HR VP, she said this about the CEO: "If he told me to dye my hair purple, I'd dye my hair purple." I was reminded of the scene in Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room when the delirious female exec advised employees to invest their entire 401(k) balances in Enron stock.

I'm afraid it's too often like this in corporate America. And the more a company is filled with purple-haired "team players" and Kool-Aid drinkers, the more likely the HR department will think twice about hiring a cynical, negative, stubbornly independent-minded ex-reporter.

But you know what? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Because most ex-journalists wouldn't want to work at companies like that anyway.

My friend is right; the best PR agencies and departments are chock-full of former journalists -- people who know that corporate Kool-Aid is not suitable for public (and especially media) consumption. The smartest companies empower their PR departments to play the critical role of intermediary between the company and the outside world -- and to do it with integrity.

If you hold yourself with dignity, aren't afraid to state your opinions, and stand up for the importance of your role, you will ultimately find an employer that respects you for it.

And by actually having an impact rather than nodding enthusiastically in the corner, you will improve the less-than-superlative image of the PR profession in the process.

Labels: journalism, Marketing Views, newspapers, PR careers, PR jobs, public relations jobs

Traditionally, PR people have been trained -- and have taught their clients or employers -- to be careful about what they say to the media. "Controlling the message" has been a central tenet of the public relations business.

This approach ensures a jackhammer consistency in public statements and protects against media bloopers. But it is also the single biggest complaint that journos have against flacks.

Like the cop who thinks a suspect must be guilty because he's hired a lawyer, many journalists wonder, "Why does a company even need a PR person if it has nothing to hide?" And of the PR person, the journo asks, "Why can't you just be candid and spontaneous, and not be so guarded in what you say to me?"

It's a nice thought; but is that really what journalists want?

On Tuesday, Jim Louderback, the editor in chief of PC Magazine, blogged about a comment made by Steve Rubel, the prominent blogger for Edelman PR. Rubel had Twitter-ed that his free subscription to PC Magazine "goes in the trash."

Louderback's response to this candid, spontaneous remark was less than forgiving.

Should I instruct the staff to avoid covering Edelman's clients? Ignore their requests for meetings, reviews and news stories? Blacklist the "Edelman.com" email domain in our exchange servers, effectively turning their requests into spam? If we're not relevant to Edelman's employees, then how could we be relevant to their clients?

He concluded that "in the future, if I'm on the fence, I'll probably be somewhat less inclined to take a meeting with one of Edelman's clients."

Louderback's comments are flawed logically. Why assume that if one Edelman employee doesn't read PC Magazine, others don't, either?

The truth is, Louderback was simply offended by Rubel's offhand jab -- and, as payback, threatened to use his organizational power as a cudgel against Rubel's employer and clients.

That's a real argument in favor of honesty, isn't it?

As you would expect, Rubel quickly assumed the position and apologized to Louderback, explaining that he only meant to say that he reads the online version of PC Magazine instead.

Is that the truth? It doesn't matter, does it? It was the response demanded by Louderback, if Rubel and Edelman knew what was good for them.

In other words, be careful what you say in the media, guys. Watch your language and control your messages, or pay the price.

One final point. Even if you believe that Louderback is justified in wielding his power in this way, does this best serve his readers?

Essentially, the editor is saying that he'll decide what his staff writes about, and what his magazine publishes, based on the standing of his personal relationship with a particular PR person or agency.

Hmmm. Shouldn't Louderback be pursuing the best story ideas that come his way -- without prejudice, no matter the source?

Candidly, yes.

(Other thoughts on Rubel v. Louderback here, here, here and here.)

Labels: journalism, media training, public relations, steve rubel, twitter