By Jon Boroshok

Pick up any business or computer publication and it's hard to overlook articles about the rift between public relations professionals and journalists - the "hacks" vs. the "flacks." Written by the same journalists experiencing the problem, these often one-sided tirades tend to focus on media relations, and PR professionals would be hard-pressed to dispute many of the journalists' complaints. To appreciate such articles, however, it helps to understand why the "battle lines" have been drawn.

Even the "techiest" of tech reporters shows more interest in a company's stock ticker symbol than the solutions that company offers, especially in the current down economy. If the story being pitched isn't about a large, publicly held company, or about signing a large, quantifiable deal with a publicly held company, reporters just aren't interested. Some reporters won't even consider covering a company they've never heard of (does this mean they take their cues from their better-informed competitors?), and it is rare that a reporter will return a call about a smaller or privately held company.

Unfortunately, journalists are bombarded with PR pitches by inexperienced, untrained flacks who are instructed to play a numbers game. Theoretically, the more reporters contacted, the better the chances of getting a hit. Reporters rightfully complain about pitches from someone who is obviously unfamiliar with their publication or beat. Unfortunately, they don't always remember that the pace of today's business makes it impossible to read each and every publication first to see who covers what. Do journalists have time to read all their competitors?

Fewer journalists are being asked to cover more stories because publications have cut staff as advertising revenues have plummeted. They're overworked, and have become less accessible, making it tougher to quickly identify the right contact for the right pitch. Even if you find a related story, it's often a time-consuming chore to find a way to contact the writer, as e-mail addresses and phone numbers are often closely guarded secrets rather than hyperlinks in bylines.

In many ways, media coverage has become a commodity with many parity products. What is each reporter, editor, article, or broadcast doing to offer some basic product differentiation? Read a technology business story in one publication and you've read it in many publications. These days, the media darlings or "flavors of the month" is still layoff and merger mania. Pack journalism is alive and well in the 21st century, and one has to wonder if publishers are "participating" in the editorial decision process. Coverage appears limited to the industry giants - Microsoft's antitrust issues and the impact on its stock price, the HP/Compaq merger, IBM hitting its financial targets, and the Yahoos, AOLs, E-Bays Amazons, Intels, and Ciscos of the world. Reporters seem to follow each other to cover only the same stories about the biggest players, which does their readers a great disservice.

Some reporters have told me this is because those are the types of companies their readers want to hear about, or because it impacts the greatest number of people. Could it be that these readers just don't know that anything else exists due to the lack of coverage? Isn't the press supposed to inform with news rather than regurgitate the status quo? Editorial decisions seem to resemble radio play lists where each song has been tested by a focus group before being totally overplayed. Readers will learn all about these large companies through their massive advertising budgets. If the alleged line between advertising and editorial still exists, doesn't it make more sense for reporters to ferret out the smaller, lesser-known companies, take some risks, and cover something that readers don't already know about?

Admittedly, PR agencies went way overboard in taking advantage of the once-strong economy Like much of corporate America, agencies have consolidated into large holding companies to maximize efficiencies and profits. Some agencies were so busy that they did not take on new clients with retainers of less than $25,000 per month. Unfortunately, these are the agencies journalists are most familiar with, and those same journalists who rightfully bemoan shoddy PR encourage the problem to persist by refusing to deviate from their well-worn paths.

Agency mergers, acquisitions, and recent downsizings contribute to the problem. Agencies talk a good game about customer service, and then fail to deliver. Mergers make agencies more cost efficient for themselves - by eliminating duplication (less folks left to serve the client), while current layoffs eliminate experienced practitioners in favor of cheaper, junior staff. Clients see the agency veterans until the contract is signed, then inexperienced young flacks do the media relations work. What does that do for a client or for relationships with the press? Where is our value add?

Part of the Internet's promise is that business can be done from anyplace, yet agencies still sell clients on the myth of location, location, location - leading clients to believe that only downtown agencies are good agencies. Reporters perpetuate the problem by turning to the same tied sources again and again. There's no reason for tech start-ups to be paying for the view from the agency's conference room. They should be paying for good, senior counsel and results.

It's a very competitive business climate, one that unreasonably demands instant results, often at the expense of long-term well-being. Clients and the media bow to the pressures of Wall Street and the need to make analysts and investors happy, with little regard to impact on future earnings or value. Everything is based on affect on stock price, not necessarily news or technological innovation and solutions. There's also pressure from publishers to cover and avoid offending potential advertisers.

The way business is done is changing, and many agencies can't or won't change with the times. Boutique agencies are doing well - they can react and adapt faster, and can service smaller, promising start-ups with senior staff. If the media would open themselves up to new contacts from less-than marquee names, some of the problem might be resolved.

Both parties are guilty here. PR flacks pitch even when there's nothing newsworthy to offer, and that problem needs to be remedied. We also need journalists to be more responsive, and open-minded, and probing. Excuse the cliché, but it's time to think outside of the box for story ideas and coverage.

With over 15 years of experience, Jon Boroshok is a marketing communications and public relations veteran. He is the founder of TechMarcom, Inc. of Westford, MA  (www.TechMarcom.com), an agency/outsource specializing in value-based marketing communications for technology companies. An accomplished strategist and writer, his articles and columns have appeared in The Boston Globe, Crain Communications, Primedia Business Magazines, ZDNet, CMP Publications, East Bay Business Times, Mass High Tech, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, DM News, PRWeek, and more. He has "ghost-written" many articles and white papers on behalf of company executives, and is also an instructor of graduate and undergraduate marketing communications and public relations at Emerson College in Boston. Boroshok has a B.S. in communications from Emerson College and an M.B.A. in marketing from Northeastern University.