More courage!

I hate the authorisation process, even though I think it is a useful tool. It often helps both parties clarify certain issues and put them in a suitable context. And I accept this. Nobody wants to be misunderstood. However, when I talk to someone, I count on them treating our meeting seriously and saying something substantial. I do a similar thing. I try to write down and present the interlocutor's point of view honestly. However, when it comes to the authorisation of an interview or a statement for an article, instead of the initial illuminating remarks, sharp observations and (at times) colourful expressions, I tend to end up with PR and marketing-speak in an anodyne-sounding stream of obviousness. Sometimes this only affects quite trivial matters; but other times the issueę concerned is really important for the industry - and in such cases a spade needs to be called a spade, instead of obscuring it in euphemisms, paraphrases and circumlocutions. PR and marketing departments often contribute to this, giving boldness a backseat to blandness. The problem is that the reader (not to mention the author) loses interest in such statements. This is a pity because the people I talk to are professionals and experts at their jobs, able to talk about the market in a highly engaging manner. They usually have open and expressive personalities. But corporate rules then force what they say to conform to a certain pattern. The prospect of once again being left with just dreary platitudes post-authorisation is therefore even more frustrating. Admittedly, trade articles are not crime novels with eccentric protagonists, but it would be nice to read something that encapsulates an issue without being boring or predictable. To take one example from the retail market: isn't the expression tenant bouquet' (as one of my colleague's interlocutors once put it) more pleasant to the ear than the well-worn tenant mix'? In another example, a shopping centre facility manager once told me (before authorisation) that "the role of the facility manager involves helping tenants to increase their financial liquidity, in the preparation of payment schedules for overdue amounts to avoid vacant space, as well as helping a given tenant to settle their current bills. This often involves a discount for a certain period of time." A discount'? Oh, horror of horrors! Somewhat predictably, in the authorised version we were given: "The role of the facility manager involves helping tenants achieve optimal financial results." The fact is the concept of authorisation itself is often misunderstood - a journalist is often asked to send the whole text, whereas it is customary (and provided for in Art. 14 of the press law of 1984) to only check a statement in the context it was used in. It sometimes happens that the quoted person has a flair for journalism and decides to re-write the whole text for me, rather than just the quotes I've taken from them. There are of course topics that require significant cooperation with an expert, but this does not equal interfering with the article in every possible respect. Another interesting type of interlocutor exists: the one who says a lot, eagerly and publicly, but is offended when quoted. There is also the problem of when a journalist includes an item of public information in the text that subsequently turns out to be uncomfortable for the company. Some complain to us that the media can do serious harm by publishing such "classified" information. Perhaps. I even find this flattering. This is what our job is all about: to accurately inform people about what is going on. On the other hand, journalists are partly to blame for the situation because they have got used to copying and pasting everything marketing departments send. Going down that road, however, only leads to becoming an alternative channel for advertising rather than a serious journal. But maybe this is the reality of the small world in our sector. So my conclusion is an appeal to both sides: be bold!

Aneta Cichla