Panorama and why don’t the media give correct credits

Charles Arthur has an interesting story about how ‘The ShinyShiny team are justifiably annoyed at the BBC Panorama team using them and then ignoring their existence in creating their programme about child exploitation in the production of Primark clothes’

The Panorama team spent three hours with the Catwalk Queen team and used their contributions extensively during the programme, yet didn’t credit their business. Instead only their names were used and they were billed as ‘fashonistas or Primark fans"’.

Now I agree with Charles that they are right to be annoyed, but seriously this happens all the time. Just because he doesn’t do this, doesn’t mean to say others don’t. Not everyone has the same standards!

To me it’s simple – if you’re using content you give credit. Yet frequently the media will use a quote or interview, but simply credit it ‘Joe Blogs, solicitor’ rather than the name of the firm, which is actually far more important to readers/viewers as if they want to know more that will be there starting point.

The same frequently happens with ‘spurious’ PR surveys and research. The media will happily cite the stats, but not credit the source. I always find it amusing that journalists say they dislike ‘spurious’ PR inspired research , yet there continues to be an insatiable demand for them and they get used.


About Stuart Bruce

International communications consultant and PR trainer specialising in online public affairs, digital corporate communications, online PR and social media; frequent national media commentator and conference speaker.
  • http://www.pr-media-blog.co.uk Mark Hanson

    totally agree, broadcast and BBC in particular, are lethal on this. Sky News also started doing it. Why would a spokesperson wanty to trek out to Isleworth to be referred to as 'Joe Blogs – solicitor'?

  • jaz patel

    Stuart, I do wonder if viewers wouldn't have been confused by a company credit because the 'blog' if you can call it that is massively commercial whereas the programme included the personal views of a few young and hip fashionistas

    http://beauty.glam.com/blogs/catwalk_queen

    To credit Glam or Shiny Shiny would have been confusing and naming the individuals meant the BBC wasn't ignoring their input. Sorry Glam but I've never seen a blog so chock full with ugly ads, Glam makes made for adsense bloggers look like editorial!

  • http://www.hackflack.co.uk Chris Marritt

    I agree to a point Stuart. If they want people to help them for free, the media should credit where they can.
    But I don't agree that readers are being cheated in any way. The overwhelming majority of readers/viewers/listeners are happy with 'Joe Bloggs, solicitor' as what they want is a sign that the quote is from a credible source. The fraction who want to hire said solicitor aren't helped, granted, but when time or space is tight, that's a relatively small price to pay. After all, a phone number and URL would be nice for those few who want to hire Mr Bloggs, but including them would make editorial look like advertising – and nobody wants to go there.
    Hate to trot out any more cliches in one comment, but nobody has a gun to the head of clients forcing them to take part in Panorama.