Working in partnership with Government can present its challenges. While the Burmese regime may be an extreme case, the recent crisis was an example of the difficult path charities and NGO's have to tread in the course of their work. Do you criticise wrongdoing or keep quiet in the hope of achieving your aims and objectives by stealth?

Closer to home depending on the Government, local authorities or other public bodies for funding presents its own dilemmas.

So let's imagine your charity works in an area that is a high priority on the Government's agenda. In terms of service delivery your organisation is the bees knees and you've therefore been receiving substantial public funding in recognition of your great work.

Out of the blue, new policies are announced and your organisation thinks the Government has got it seriously wrong. The media are on to it and something of a furore is building. You are being asked to comment.

This presents something of a dilemma - do you keep shtumm and exclude yourself from an important debate on issues at the heart of your work or risk biting the hand that feeds you with stinging criticism of policy?

So how prepared is your charity to handle such sensitive requests from the media? How will you negotiate a line between your right to be critical of policy without endangering your funding? As a current affairs TV producer, I've often encountered reluctance on the part of charities and other organisations to criticise or even comment on the Government, local authority or other public body on which they are dependant for funding.

It doesn't have to be this way.

This is the one instance when more measured tones are appropriate. If you are a big enough key player, the media will be interested in your comments anyway, without you having to resort to the heightened language normally required to get that juicy quote in the papers or on the TV.

With the careful use of language, there should be no reason why you cannot enter public debate and challenge your Government or local authority. Focussing on your clients needs and relating them to case histories rather than a full frontal attack on the relevant Secretary of State and his/her Department's proposals is one way of showing how the policy direction may be wrong.

And the language you use may be the key. A clear truthful message about the effect on service delivery to your clients should not endanger your relationship with your funder.

Just sometimes, the situation merits you putting your head above the parapet in this way rather than ducking the issue.

David O'Keeffe is Director of the media training company Dreamcatcher Media. Tel: 0208 241 3746

I've been using the askCharity service for over two years, and the generous help from charity PRs never ceases to amaze me. However, as the service has grown more popular, it does get harder to generate the same volume of responses and find case studies.

It must be hard, when you're bombarded with requests, to read through everything. That's why I aim to make the title of my request informative, and the request itself as concise as possible, so PRs can see at a glance if it's relevant.

If you see a request that grabs your attention, but you don't feel there's enough information to act upon, get in touch with the journalist or researcher. They're not withholding detailed information to make your life more difficult - they're just trying to generate as much interest as possible. Contact them and ask for all the details. If it is a genuine request, the journalist will be more than happy to help, even if it doesn't turn out to be a project you can work together on. I'm always happy to exchange information with new PR contacts. Even if we can't work together on one particular story, another will soon come along where we can.

Another dilemma for many of my charity contacts is whether to put case studies forward for interview. Most journalists understand that charities build up strong relationships with their case studies; any journalist worth his or her salt will respect that. Although journalists have no control over whether an editor will publish a commissioned piece, we can keep you informed, explaining everything that can (and probably will) happen to your case study, from photo shoots to agency interest, to make the experience a positive one for them.

Most journalists, particularly in the health and real life market, understand that not everyone feels completely comfortable sharing their story - no matter how much they want to help their charity. It helps to know what the journalist has worked on before, to give you and the case study peace of mind.

I direct interviewees to my website initially, so they can see who I am, who I've worked with and the kinds of stories I've written. I'm also keen to point out my counselling training, which helps immensely when I'm dealing with sensitive issues. If you're worried about putting a case study in touch with a journalist, find out as much as you can about them. They shouldn't mind sharing previous articles, experience and interviews, or even putting you in touch with case studies they've worked with previously. Journalists do understand why charities are suspicious of them, but they also want to build solid, trusting relationships. A good journalist will go out of their way to affirm your faith in them.

Johanna Payton is a freelance journalist specialising in health, parenting and real life - www.johannapayton.co.uk

At yesterday's CharityComms seminar we were lucky enough to have Martin Moore, Director of the Media Standards Trust, speaking on why charities need to become more like news organisations. Here is what Martin wrote about the event:

Just back from giving a talk to lots of charity folk (mostly from communications/press/pr) about why they need to become more like news organisations.

By that I certainly don't mean ActionAid should try to become like News International. What I mean is that charities should do more reporting. Not PR. Not marketing and communications. On-the-ground, face-to-face, regular, consistent, fair, factual reporting.

I haven't space in this blog to go through my whole spiel but, in bite size chunks my argument is this:

- 'News', in its many and various forms, is immensely important for shaping our political outlook and directing social action. If you don't believe me then look at the effect blanket coverage of the China earthquake had on fundraising compared to the virtually non-existent coverage of Burma. Over $900m raised for Chinese earthquake victims (approximately 74,000 deaths to date). About $55m raised for Burmese cyclone victims (approximately 134,000 deaths to date) - source, The Times (22-5-08).

- News organisations are doing less on-the-ground reporting. The evidence for this will be familiar to those who have been reading this blog and from Nick Davies, Press Gazette, and the missives sent out by the NUJ

- News organisations (and the public) are relying more and more on other sources for their news . I'm sure you've already noticed that most of us are now getting 'news' from lots of places we didn't used to (this blog for instance). From the government, from commercial organisations (Property News anyone?), and of course 'citizen journalists', aka the public. According to OFCOM, for example, the government now spends over £100m a year producing newspapers and funding government 'news' outlets.

Problem is... most of these sources are erratic, they lack context, you don't know what their motive is for writing/photographing/recording their content, and there's little chance their news is informed by a sense of obligation to the public interest.

That's where charities come in.

Now charities have an agenda too of course. But they are also motivated by a sense of obligation to the public, have a keen interest in seeing injustice reported, are structured in such a way that they can report as part of their day job, and of course they're already 'on-the-ground'. Plus, since they tend to wear their agenda on their sleeve (often in brightly coloured neon), at least you know where their bias is coming from.

But, and it's a big but, charities have to understand that reporting is different from PR. They have to realise their audience is not just big media organisations anymore, it's also the public. And as such their communication to the public should be informed by the values that inform journalism, not the values that inform PR.

If they collect factual information, report it fairly, and contextualise it properly, they won't just start to fill the public information gap left by fast-departing news organisations, but will promote their own cause in a sustainable and ethical way.

People working in charity communications earn a fortune.

There's no point complaining when a journalist completely misrepresents your charity.

The world doesn't revolve around your charity.

Just some of the comments from former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie at the Charity Communications '08 conference.

The controversial tabloid supremo certainly spoke his mind. He got everyone talking with his self-titled "rant".

Kelvin told the Charity Communications '08 audience not to read press coverage their charity received but to weigh it as it's the amount they get that's important.

And his advice to charity communicators on what to do if they're not happy with their organisation's media coverage was as direct: "Just get over it!"

"Editors are omnipotent. They don't have to be balanced," he concluded.

I was responsible for one of the roaming mics at the conference and was kept busy running around giving audience members the opportunity to respond to Kelvin's comments.

As conference organisers, we did brief Kelvin twice about the charity sector, communications and fundraising, which he apparently chose to ignore.

Feedback from delegates post-conference suggests some thought Kelvin was talking complete rubbish. They said his comments were offensive and irrelevant: he didn't know what he was talking about.

Others felt his words were a wake up call to those working in charity communications. That, as its former editor and a current columnist, Kelvin speaks for the Sun's 3 million plus readers. So, sadly, his thoughts are representative of a significant portion of the population and this is something charity communicators should bear in mind.

What do you think?

You can download Kelvin's keynote address here: www.ngomedia.org.uk .

Trina Wallace, a writer at ngo.media, a copywriting agency for charities.

If you are writing copy for emails - or even for the web - you need to think differently to standard comms copy and PR. Here are some pointers -

First off it is considered rude to shout at people by CAPITALISING EVERYTHING, even the title - on screen it is better to use bold, underline or a different colour.

Highlight headlines, links and quotes by using indents, colours or bold, but do not use italics as they are very difficult to read on a PC screen.

Most important of all is the length of the copy. Use short paragraphs so the copy does not look too heavy on the screen, it is better to use short sentences and short paragraphs to make the copy readable.

Do not make the article too long. Give a precis and a link to the full copy. Even if you have a major professional article give people a taster so they can decide to click through to the whole.

Think about the writing style. Whatever your corporate style or brand, emails are usually more personal and slightly less formal than print copy or letters. Email is considered the second most “personal” form of communication behind text messages.

Some of the most successful are written by volunteers and beneficiaries telling their story. While that may not be possible for your email, very formal language and style looks out of place in an email newsletter.

And finally, whatever you do, make sure that the links work before you send out any emails. Everybody hates getting a Page Not Found error... it looks careless and unprofessional, damages the impression and dents the brand image.

And if you are sending out press releases by email, follow all the rules above, and remember to include the full links rather than hide them behind CLICK HERE. This will help the web editor add them to a site quickly without having to click through.

Sue Fidler