PR is growing and it looks more attractive than journalism. It comes with a big salary together with mouth-watering perks. PR practitioners sit on their companies' Board of Directors meetings and they have their own big offices. This is a more plum job compared to the journalist' small cubicles in the newsroom's open plan. There are more career opportunities in PR, contrary to journalism which has very thin ranks to move up the ladder. In PR there is less pressure unlike working on tight stressful deadlines that journalists undergo everyday.

Some PR practitioners who made the switch reassure themselves by saying 'journalism has changed anyway'. They say the current state of journalism is not what they 'wished for', hence the move. Others say they have 'been there and done it all and it's time for a new challenge'.

According to me their 'new challenge' is killing the press. Journalism plays the part of an independent watchdog with a big role of informing the citizens, which is a crucial function in the modern democracy. Today journalism faces many challenges, including tough government legislations (draconian media bills) and losing experienced journalists who are recruited by the PR industry. These ex-journalists-cum-PR practitioners pose a real threat to journalism. It should be known that the decision to recruit a journalist to the post of PR is calculated and strategic. These companies are hiring former gatekeepers, who are experienced in filtering out puff and digging out real stories, to new jobs that will require them to reverse their former roles. Once on the 'other side' they will now use their journalistic experience to intelligently pile puff into our news and hide real stories.

Readers would then be short changed because their only available mode of truth information has been compromised.

PR initiative is successful when it gets free publicity in the form of positive news while remaining invisible to the media consumer. PR practitioners fight to fill our media with free marketing material without us noticing the underplaying hand. They know that people will be more inclined to believe a news story other than an advertisement. This has great potential to hurt our media, especially newspapers because local media companies survive from its advertisers, unlike in countries like United Kingdom where circulation brings in more revenue than advertising.

For instance, an ex-journalist-cum-PR practitioner who wants to publicise a 'press release' that is not newsworthy from his company in the newspaper as a news item, (not as an advertisement that is paid for and less credible) will be in an better advantage than a mere PR practitioner. An ex-journalist-cum-PR practitioner can call his former colleague or his former editor-friend and do those usual 'I-just-sent-you-a-press-release-let-me know-what-you-think' type of conversations, and the 'press release' will make the news item and sometimes reproduced word for word with a big headline and a picture. It is mission accomplished for the PR guy but it is wrong to the readers. Mind you, most of these 'Press releases' are written by committees and edited by lawyers and the work of the PR practitioner is to insert this propaganda material in the newspaper as a news item.

In effect the newspaper would have lost potential advertising revenue and space for a real newsworthy story wasted. And for the journalist, he has failed to block propaganda material and lost potential (advertising) money in the process.

These ex-journalists on the 'dark side' have inside knowledge on the exact needs of journalists and they can easily manipulate these poor journalists. They know the processes of reporting and that is why it will be easy for them to play the system - which could be the main reason why they got the job. They can use their experience to see well in time, when a reporter is digging for information.

The growing number of freelancers in the media industry presents a good opportunity for these former journalists on the dark side to use freelancers to their advantage.

Freelancers need fast stories for cash. They are paid when their stories are published. So they need as many stories as possible to make money. In these days whereby practising journalists usually complain of lack of copy and since those who crossed to the 'dark side' are aware of this situation, it presents them with a golden opportunity to take the media for a ride.

Investigative stories that normally involve spending most of the time doing some research work are not cost effective to freelancers and full-time journalists do not have the luxury of time due to pressure to produce stories on tight deadlines. So these ex-journalists-cum-PR practitioners would easily feed them with ready-made stories about their companies or clients. Basically if you have friends in the media your company or clients would have better chances of getting favourable reporting from your media friends.

The question now is should we blame these ex-journalists or their recruiters or the editors or is it the media industry as a whole. Most journalists believe their profession is a 'calling'. They say it requires great passion and love to stay the course. So probably these journalists who enter enemy ground were not passionate enough or maybe it just died out or they simply pursued the wrong profession. One reason could be that they failed to resist the temptations of the big office and big salary or even simpler, reality got to them. And we should understand that in their new acquired roles, they must work to achieve specific goals from their masters using all the available resources including their valuable experience as journalists.

The people who recruit these journalists do so with a clear vision and it is a strategic recruitment that will benefit the company by helping to effectively and efficiently control the flow of information from the company. These recruiters are well aware that their move will weaken the media but that is not their concern, they have their companies to worry about. This could be viewed as selfish, compromising journalists by turning them into 'spin doctors'. Their gain is a great loss to the media industry and to the public at large.

Maybe the media industry is to blame for not keeping its people. The industry does not pay well they have poor stressful working conditions and few career opportunities. One may reason that the hectic lifestyle of a journalist suits a particular age and period of life. So probably some journalists leave to the corporate world for a stable environment that is free from the adrenaline of journalism because they feel it is time to move on. The Editors who are, according to me, the ultimate filters of puff from our news could also be blamed. These are the people who should inspire and guide the reporters to produce quality work. They should raise the bar and be a thorough sieve to make sure that only quality material gets to the reader.

In concluding, Botswana cannot afford to have a weak media. Since our parliament has a defunct opposition the media remains the only body that can call the ruling party to account. So any threats to the media are threats to our democracy, which is why we have to protect our media. Recently the media pointed to the government as its only menace, not realising that the corporate world is killing them softly from the inside. I thus submit that recruiting journalists to PR jobs poses a serious threat to the media.

Thalefang Charles
GABORONE