Ed Yong's Posterous, the aptly named Posterous account of Ed Yong

Here’s an amusing series of emails, exchanged last night and this morning after I came across a press release that looked interesting. Regular readers will know that I don’t write from press releases, so I did what I always do – I asked for a copy of the paper. All details have been redacted as the embargo hasn’t lifted yet. 

Me: Can I please get a copy of the paper described in “TITLE”? I will abide by the embargo of DATE.

Press officer: Article attached. This is a descriptive item for JOURNAL NAME. The actual paper with all the technical details hasn't been published yet. I hope this helps.

Me: Do you know when it might be published?

PO: No, but the JOURNAL NAME article was peer reviewed using the data. They just wanted to run a feature about the research. I probably won't run a press release when it is published, as I've done one now.

A bit odd. I rarely see press releases based on feature articles, much less peer-reviewed feature articles. And while I have no problem with doing “upstream” reporting, I have no interest in writing a second-hand account of something based on someone else’s upstream reporting. If the actual data isn’t available, then what I really need to do is to talk to the author. Unfortunately, Google seems to be unusually useless in this instance, as does the author’s institution’s website. I thought it would be quicker if I just asked:

Do you have contact details for LEAD AUTHOR?

Which returned the following reply:

I think you have all you need for a blog.

Ooookay. And that’s a first. I can’t really think that many press officers feel the ability to tell journalists when they’ve had enough material for their reporting, but perhaps this is a “you’re not a journalist, you’re a blogger” thing. At this point, I’ve lost all interest in this story, but this attitude is intriguing. I replied:

Interesting. Do you often tell journalists when you think they've had enough material for their reporting?

And the response:

No, but I sometimes have to prioritise requests, particularly where academics are reluctant participants and I have already asked LEAD AUTHOR to do a number of interviews. If you want to email any specific questions, I'm happy to pass them on.

That’s probably fair enough, although that might have been a better initial response. Never mind – we’re all busy etc. I was happy to leave it here but then I got the following without any further prompting:

For information, I was a journalist for 15 years, which included being a newspaper editor and a magazine publisher. I am therefore suitably qualified to advise journalists. Your blog articles are about half the length of my press release and certainly a lot shorter than the JOURNAL paper, hence why I wondered why you needed yet more information. Still, I'm willing to forward any specific questions you might have as per my previous email but please don't try to patronise me. I'm a bit too long in the tooth.

A treasure trove, this. Firstly, the press release in question is 530 words long and my average blog posts are 800-1000. Unless somehow my correspondent has confused “half” with “double”, I can only think that he’s looked at the front page of the blog and failed to see the “Read the rest of the entry” links.

Secondly, if I ever try to further a conversation by citing my CV, someone please shoot me.

But finally, I think this boils down to a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of a journalist. I’m not a stenographer. I don’t care about this chap’s press release. I want to review the information for myself. That’s why I asked for the paper and that’s why I want to chat to the scientist. All of this really should be obvious to someone who spent 15 years as a journalist but never mind - plenty of other things to write about.