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

Last week I attended the fantastic Charity Communications Conference 2008. My highlight of the day was listening to the brilliant Polly Toynbee (social and political commentator of the Guardian), interview award winning journalist Nick Davies - one of my idols when I was a student journalist.

Davies began by talking about his latest book Flat Earth News in which he claims the global media output has become full of propaganda, distortion and pseudo events which in part come from the PR industry. He attributed this partly to the fact that many journalists no longer have time to go out and find their stories or check facts.

At the same time, he said, there is in an increasing demand for news whilst staff numbers are cut. This is not a new argument- but what is new is Davies's claim that the shift occurred as corporations took over ownership of the media - as the logic of corporations took over the logic of journalism.

Davies said: "Whilst this is bad for news consumers... I suppose it's good for you (an audience of communicators)."

Davies's argument that the media is weak- allowing PR to influence output is alarming for us as news consumers but must be good news for many of the small charities I speak to through askCHARITY- who believe that it is difficult if not impossible to get their message out there.

Davies went on to tell the audience how they could manipulate the media. He said it was about using the media formula to convert reality into useable stories. His top tips for engaging with the media were:

1) Make it cheap and easy- they have a limited budget and limited time- take the stories to them, give them what they need to make the story suitable for their audience

2) Give them safe facts- the media love stories from official 'credible' sources

Toynbee asked many of the questions that were on my mind...including what makes a good press officer. Davies replied:

"There are two sorts of press officers: the maverick- who knows what they are talking about and is prepared to be a bit brave by giving me off the record information in the hope of exposing something they don't agree with....The second who is loyal- and I want a little bit of courage from them."

When the questions came from the audience Toynbee was asked how to get into the mind of a columnist, she replied:

"Choose a columnist....they have a lot of space to fill and may be interested. It needs to contain an idea or a bigger picture...anyone who comes with new fresh thoughts is extremely welcome."

Another questioner from the audience wanted to know from Davies how to make sure the media would not distort the stories of their case studies. Davies suggested giving an exclusive story to a trusted journalist from a Sunday newspaper- then the Monday papers may pick it up with the same message.

To find out more about the Charity Communications Conference go to: www.charitycommunications.co.uk

Emma Wickenden
CharityComms Coordinator