Below the belt

I have been called many things in the pursuit of news stories, but being called a "high priestess" by an external communications specialist at one of SA's largest firms takes the cake.

Part of compiling news means approaching various parties for comment or answers to questions. I've had responses that vary from "No comment" to "I'll sue you if you print that." The latter, of course, raises the question: "What are you hiding?"

However, I don't think I have ever had such a venomous response to having - yet again - e-mailed a series of questions to this particular company. Not only am I an arrogant unprofessional "high priestess", desperate for a news story, but my questions are "below the belt" and clearly offensive.

Like a Staffordshire terrier with a favourite bone, I refused to let the matter drop.

Nicola Mawson, senior journalist, ITWeb

The reason behind the scathing attack was that I had the audacity to ask several questions not once, but a few times over a few days, as I was unsatisfied with the company's response.

Which is why, like a Staffordshire terrier with a favourite bone, I refused to let the matter drop. I also refused to be the victim of a buck-passing exercise. And this is how this award-winning journalist was branded unprofessional, arrogant, a "high priestess" and accused of "below the belt" questioning.

I'm sure I am not alone in this. And I'm quite sure that this will not be the last time I will cross swords with a company in pursuit of information. Sometimes, as a journalist, asking questions can get you into serious trouble. Mysteriously disappearing journalists covering wars are but one example.

Locally, unless you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are likely only to be verbally abused, or sued. Generally, the state of external communications in SA is such that you will just be ignored, and left to find an alternative avenue to news collecting. Enter the anonymous source; the person who blows a whistle despite fear of losing a job.

Granted, journalists often have close working relationships with the companies they cover, and information flow goes both ways, but surely an acidic attack is not conducive to enhancing any working relationship? And threatening me with taking my so-called unprofessional conduct up the ladder smacks of the bad old days.

Schoolyard bullyboy tactics that amount to nothing more than over-vigilant gate keeping and censorship are not the way to make friends and influence people. Neither will such tactics ensure that your company is covered by the media only ever in a positive light. Instead, this is the sort of stuff that begs a magnifying glass.