A lot of freelance writers, including me, have to maintain multiple hustles to keep the bills paid, including work that involves advocacy or PR. How should writers to handle conflicts of interest? —Anonymous
When it comes to advocacy or PR you’re doing on the side, the safest thing is to create the strongest wall you can between your consulting work and your journalistic work. But I get that’s not realistic—or even ideal—for many people, myself included. I run a site called Lady Journos! that explicitly seeks to address the gender byline gap. But I also write about women and media. Am I “compromised”? By old-media standards, yes. By new-media standards, I’m a more worthy expert. My commitment and involvement mean I have a deep knowledge of the issue and access to a lot of great sources who trust me and will speak openly with me. I also have a built-in network of people who will want to share my journalistic work on the subject, regardless of whether I quote them or not.
Of course, all of my professional affiliations and advocacy interests are openly disclosed on my personal site. No one can say I didn’t warn them. Which brings me to the real takeaway here: transparency, transparency, transparency! If your advocacy or consulting work in any way intersects with your journalistic work, it’s definitely something to raise with your editor(s) at the outset, preferably before they assign you work. Once your editor knows about your other affiliations, you can decide together how and whether to disclose them to readers. If I was your editor, I’d hate to accept a pitch and then find out after you file that you’re actually doing some consulting work on this particular issue. Disclose early and often. Surprise, in this case, is definitely a bad thing.

Flirting with sources: When does it cross the line? When you get to be Sally Quinn, or long before that? I’m not just talking about the pieces where the did-they-or-didn’t-they is baked into the magazine narrative. I’m talking about just regular chatting someone up and ingratiating yourself. (And, obviously, question is equally applicable to both genders, though probably more complicated for women, much as I would like it not to be.) —Anonymous
Reporting and flirtation have a lot in common. They’re both about engaged listening and conveying genuine interest, but not falling all over yourself.

So naturally, when you’re giving a source your undivided attention and making meaningful eye contact and hanging on his every word, it can feel a lot like, well, flirting. I think that’s okay. I would never go in for a thigh-touch or wear something low-cut or drop casual references to the fact that you’re single, but you want sources to like and trust and want to talk to you. I think it’s possible to do that without veering into overt-flirtation territory. You don’t have to be cold, but you do have to keep it professional.

The gifs are really annoying. Maybe you could try a column or two without them.
#1 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Wed 26 Dec 2012 at 01:22 PM
This blog post is really disappointing. I clicked to it from Mediabistro expecting to read something reported, new, smart, and contemplative about the changing nature of journalism in a media environment largely dominated by pundits and personalities. (What else should I expect from a journalism school, one of the oldest and most prestigious in the country, run out of an Ivy League university?) Instead, I got this -- a sad, unreported mishmash of tired advice, questionable connections, and anonymous quotes. I assume this was written by an unpaid intern but, in the future, editors might want to look over intern copy before it goes live. This is really just unacceptable from an institution such as CJR. Good luck.
#2 Posted by Anonymous though hopefully constructive advice, CJR on Thu 27 Dec 2012 at 09:14 AM
I'm with the two folks above. Lose the gifs, pls. And a more substantive discussion of either topic would have been welcome.
#3 Posted by Dt, CJR on Thu 27 Dec 2012 at 09:45 AM
I agree with the OP above. I was hoping form some practical insight about establishing and maintaining that wall between PR and journalistm whan a writer (occasionally) does both. Instead, it's a mosh of vague bromides and pointless .gif clips.
#4 Posted by Danwriter, CJR on Thu 27 Dec 2012 at 12:31 PM
Sorry, make that four disappointed people. I straddle the fence working in journalism and public relations who anticipated some fresh, valuable insights under the CJR banner. The entire article could be summed up in a Twitter post: "Be transparent." Even with worthwhile content, those awful GIFs would have made it close to unreadable anyway, esp. the second one. A quick check through the archives showed me the author includes such GIFs in all her columns. To CJR's editors: Please, please make it stop.
#5 Posted by Falcon, CJR on Fri 28 Dec 2012 at 01:34 AM
A quick check of her work elsewhere finds....
You know, I want to be nice, but this stuff reads like the real life adventures of Lena Dunham proposal.
Somebody thinks it's edgy or entertaining or new, but it's kinda not.
When it comes to gifs, some of us have seen a few. It takes more than a moving picture to make with the funny. You'd be better off making the point than trying to make the 'funny' gif do it for you.
And that brings us back to the central issue, the point.
What is the point of all these columns on journalists and their blogs, journalists and their social media, journalists and their twitter tweet wars, etc...?
Not to be mean, but as an older school guy, what you folks call meta, I call navel gazing.
There's a whole world out there and your using your platform to talk about yourself and your blog and you you you..
Did you ever think the question of activism and journalism could be investigated? History could be looked into? How being a journalist and speaking at a lecture or signing a petition could affect your work? How being in the frontline of a story can affect the psychology of the reporter and thus affect the voice of her work?
This is an interesting topic. and this ⇡ is navel gazing.
You want to be a writer? Go write a book, spend more time on your blogs. You want to be a journalist? Write about something, someone other than yourself. You aren't the subject. Journalists who make themselves the subject are lazy.
I don't want to be mean, but come on. You've been at this awhile now.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 29 Dec 2012 at 03:04 AM
"I hate this thing that isn't, and wasn't ever meant to be, what I want it to be. I think I'll post an anonymous Internet comment complaining about it!"
- Every post above this one.
Remember what Ann said about transparency? Maybe you guys should have the courage to put your name on what you write.
#7 Posted by Andrew Sheeler, CJR on Thu 3 Jan 2013 at 09:49 PM
Every one of the previous comments is incorrect.
#8 Posted by Dan, CJR on Thu 3 Jan 2013 at 10:28 PM
I'm here for the gifs. In fact I just sent the flirting one to two people, because it is hilarious.
#9 Posted by cidmonster, CJR on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 01:56 PM