Copy approval, a journalist's nightmare and a growing menace

A thoroughly irritating and nasty trend is developing in the world of celebrity journalism.

Celebrities would once appear in the papers famous purely on the basis of their talent,  live shows, music or acting ability.

Journalists would interview them, go to their concerts, or watch them in the theatre and an article would follow.

It would be good or bad depending on the performance, stars would often wait with baited breath for the opinions of the press - uncensored.

  

We live in a different world now. The papers, internet and television are flooded with fame-desperate minor celebs all pushing to get a mention.

Usually it is an interview on their latest talent show, their latest haircut, the latest party they have been to, the latest footballer they have slept with, the latest house they have bought, or an exclusive glimpse of them getting their nails done.

The trail of the z-list “celebrity”  is now the staple fodder of a national journalist - ok , I can live with that.

To a certain extent you have to grin, bear it, feigning delight and excitement while sitting down to interview Chanooska from Big Brother 23 about her decision to have a breast enlargement.

But not content with getting their pedicure on page three of the Mail, along with an exclusive chat  on what it was like in the house, contestant  8,247 now comes with a PR girl in tow, earwigging every word to make sure nothing scandalous gets out.

I can just about put up with that, but guaranteed to make my blood boil is when they then demand “copy approval”.

This means handing over anything you write from an interview or press briefing to Talula from Glitzo PR to go over it with the red marker before it is published.

In other words, their  PR teams want to edit the paper, showing their client in the best light, rather than the  editor of the paper making the final decision  - the one who actually knows what they are doing.

This is the slipperiest of slopes to start sliding down and I am of the opinion that it should be avoided at all costs.  Even if it means  declining  coverage to people whose management insists on vetting copy.

The past two occasions I have had a PR on my case demanding to see my story before my editor, I have been backed in the decision to say fair enough, we’ll drop the interview then, thanks very much.

Once, it meant a rival who didn’t make the demand, ended up with the half-page.

In January 1999 former England football manager Glen Hoddle gave an interview to Times reporter Matt Dickinson, during which he revealed a controversial belief that disabled people were being punished for their actions in a former life.

The comment made it into the article and provoked an uproar which eventually let to Hoddle’s dismissal from the England team as they prepared for Euro 2000.

Had a PR team insisted on copy approval, this comment would undoubtably have been censored.

As it was, Dickinson was able to stand by what his interview had revealed,  he had a clear note of the conversation in shorthand and was able to prove what was said.

Of course the run of the mill interviews with “stars” these days rarely elicit anything any more vacuous than who fancies who on a judging panel, or what the next publicity show appearance is likely to be.

But all the same, it should be up to the editor what goes into the paper, and not the PR machine.

Push your Essex housewives, ex-jungle desperados at me by all means , but don’t start telling me what to write.

Newspapers should be much tougher with this copy approval lark.

After all, most "celebrities" these days need the press more than we need them.