A request for 'good freelance writers' from a web based publication, came through on Response Source this week and it got me thinking. I know that every journalist can point to umpteen examples of badly written press releases and the 'oh my god, how bad is this' cry, is sadly still all too common in media outlets across the country. Indeed it's not just journalists that acknowledge that there is some dreadful material being put out by PRs, but more generally I wondered if journalists consider those PRs that can write to be 'proper' writers? Or is there a general feeling that you have to have been through the traditional journalist career route for your writing to be valid? Editors have to have scrutinised your copy and thrown it back in your face. My perception is that there still seems to be a general sniffyness that because you may have spent your time writing marketing related material (rather than independent commentary), that makes the actual quality of the writing somehow not as good. I'm not so sure. Isn't the quality of the writing about the writer not the content?
Not sure the response source journo would have responded favourably to PRs contacting him and offering their services though.