26 janvier 2006

Are flacks credible? Lets ask the hacks

Yesterday, I had a message for Jack Shafer. Here's a little more info (that, obviously, confirms my point) on the same subject.

It comes from a study (800K PDF, in French) from the Chaire en relations publiques de l'Université du Québec à Montréal.

When asked to characterize the work of PR officers, 50% (42.86+7.14%) of the journalists interviewed said that PR flacks helped get them access to information while only 29.59% (17,35%+12.24%) said that they hindered access to information. Other answers (including has no impactInfopresse wrote an article on the subject and Nadia Seraiocco added her comments (both in French).

3 commentaires:

Anonyme a dit...

Interesting, Mark. I'll spend some time on the document, using my limited French. What was the scope of the research? Just French language journalists, or English/French?

Anonyme a dit...

Sorry - meant to write "Marc," but my fingers typed Mark...

marcsnyder a dit...

I emailed the chair of the Chaire en relations publiques de l'Université du Québec à Montréal, Danielle Maisonneuve. Her answer follows:

Merci pour votre message. En réponse à votre question, tous les journalistes du Québec étaient invités à répondre au sondage, aussi bien les francophones que les anglophones. Mais nous n'avons pas inclus de question sur la langue de sorte qu'il est impossible de savoir combien de francophones et combien d'anglophones ont répondu.

Notre questionnaire n'ayant pas été traduit en anglais, il est possible que très peu d'anglophones y aient répondu.

In clear, all journalists were invited, no questions about language were included and since the questionnaire wasn't translated it's possible that little anglophones answered.

My two cents: I don't think there would have been much of a difference.