I have to think the vast majority of people using HARO are only using it to promote their businesses or their clients, so almost no one would have a reason to game the system. Why would you want to be in stories that don’t address your topic? I doubt many credible journalists will be put off of HARO by one crazy narcissist.

Wow. I just Tweeted and Pinned this guy’s blog post about research via copyblogger. Those will be deleted. This completely ruins the credibility of his position. PR folks already work hard to build trusting relationships with media members, and people like this just make it that much harder for those relationships.

I know why you took this personally, Peter. No one wants anyone to take advantage of something/someone they love and that’s not acceptable at all, but in generally people sold snake oil long ago and they will continue to do so no matter how many sources can be cross checked. Some work hard building their own and some work hard at siphoning from the success of the former.

I wrote the article, so I thought I would comment here. I think, like Peter said, this kind of thing is irritating and asinine, but collective punishment works. One guy messes things up, and everyone else can see how to be better. I hope, ultimately, that this is good for the HARO community — if reporters are a little more wary, it helps out those who are telling the truth.

Peter, I know this goes against the simplicity of the system, but maybe you need a mail-redirect system similar to what Craigslist uses.

That way you can better sniff out those who are truly spamming the system with their bogus responses, and you can snag some fairly nice analytics about how that first-wave of responses is going. Right now, the initial connections are bypassing you entirely — this would give you a great metric to eventually help reporters learn how to build more successful queries.

It’s a thought.

Peter,

I do suck at lying. That’s why its so scary that my experiment would take down the must trusted media outlets in the world. That’s the trust and influence that HARO has over the media but clearly doesn’t deserve.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. You’re in PR, I’m in PR. You wrote a book about why everyone should do media stunts (I read it, it was okay). I wrote a book about media stunts…except the difference is that I’m critical of all this. I think it’s a bad thing. I’m exposing the vulnerabilities in the media because I think they threaten over very perception of reality.

Maybe I lied. Or lie. But my conscience is clean. I confessed.

R

Peter, I love your posts – all of them. This one makes me understand why. You call it as you see it. Good for you; good for all of us. Elaine

Hi Peter, Frank… me again. I took the liberty of editing Ryan’s comment for clarity:

(I do suck at lying.)
Which undermines why we ought to buy the book.

(That’s why its so scary that my experiment would take down the must trusted media outlets in the world.)
No, it didn’t take down anyone. They’re still trusted, because your contributions to their daily churn were negligible.

(That’s the trust and influence that HARO has over the media but clearly doesn’t deserve.)
HARO doesn’t have trust or influence over the media. Why assume that you’re the only one who lies to the media. I’m pretty sure you’re not even responsible for a fraction of 1% of the lies the media gets told. So even if you didn’t lie your way to these 15 Minutes, HARO still has a fine reputation with professionals who know how to use it.

(Let’s get down to brass tacks. You’re in PR, I’m in PR.)
No, Ryan. You are not in Public Relations. True Public Relations involves building relationships of trust that allow organizations to communicate to the people that matter to them. What you did is Publicity. They are very, very different animals — and the fact that you don’t understand that really speaks volumes about your credentials to write a book about either the media or PR.

(You wrote a book about why everyone should do media stunts (I read it, it was okay).)
No, Peter wrote a book about how you ought to consider doing things outside of the status quo. I don’t recall him ever telling anyone to lie.

(I wrote a book about media stunts…except the difference is that I’m critical of all this.)
No, you wrote a book which is apparently based on malformed understandings of communications disciplines — which you are attempting to promote with a stunt based on serial and intentional deceptions. You ought to be critical of what you are doing, but that doesn’t excuse the behavior. Ever.

(I think it’s a bad thing.)
Glad to see we can find some common ground.

(I’m exposing the vulnerabilities in the media because I think they threaten over very perception of reality.)
Dude, there are SO many more vulnerabilities worth writing about. The very transition that our journalistic institutions are navigating is a far more fascinating subject. And the fact is that WE the CONSUMERS are the biggest threat, because we must learn how to vet for ourselves. {{ For what it’s worth, I happen to have a few years worth of blog posts around this theme, perhaps you can learn something from it. }}

(Maybe I lied.)
Maybe I lied. {{ fixed }}

(Or lie.)
Deliberate Manipulation for Self-Promotion would be a more apt description.

(But my conscience is clean.)
Even though you have yet to release a list of all of the stories you deliberately tainted? Repentance is specific.

(I confessed.)
Which doesn’t mean much if we have to shell out a few bucks to find the list of stories you tainted.

messagePeter, don’t sweat this guy; he seems like a low-level narsasist, who doesn’t have — and probably will never get (unless it could lead to another book) — a clear understanding of social/community responsibility. Yes, we have to check sources, and that’s never a bad message to re enforce, but don’t give this guy any more attention — that’s all he really wants, and he probably doesn’t know what to do with that either.

Ike, very intreiguing idea. I suppose that kind of system would pick up people who pitch too frequently and to too many unrelated queries. Still, it sounds like a lot of work for the occasional nut-job.

Hey, just want to clarify that Copyblogger was not promoting Ryan as it relates to this mess. He pitched me on a post about research, which was actually quite good. The things he says he did in that post have been confirmed by Tim Ferriss and Robert Greene, two of the authors he worked for.

That said, this has been extremely bad timing for us. I didn’t see Peter’s post until later in the day, and removed Ryan’s post from the homepage of the blog right after. Of course, by that point, it had gone out to all subscribers since morning.

I don’t think Ryan was manipulating us, because that piece of content stood on its own, and it was fact checked (ironically). That said, I will take this lesson as an opportunity to review the guest posts we accept in the future.

I am just hearing about this. I think most people don’t put stock in scammers and liars – besides what a waste of time to invest any more talk or energy into someone needs a damn hug or something. >>>Back to business – great job Peter and team! I love HARO;)

HARO has been a great tool for us. It’s existence cannot be blamed for the situation.

I’m a PR professional using HARO to pitch stories on behalf of my company. I understand some people like me will try to game the system; however, I’ve seen sales people posing as reporters gaming the system as well. A few days ago I responded to what looked like a legitimate query for expertise my company has (‘query-2awb@helpareporter.net’). After doing a little more digging on the so-called “reporter” and the “outlet” she represented, it turns out this was nothing more than a sales person working for a lead generation organization. In other words, she was trying to use HARO as a business development tool. To date she has not contacted me, but if she ever does I have many words for her. Bottom line: Aside from my wasted time responding to this bogus query, my full contact information is now in someone’s (and probably others’) database.

Although source checking is a good point it is a sad day when someone promotes a book about lying. Sure lying can get you somewhere, that’s why children try it out for size once or twice. It works! At least until the you-know-what hits the fan. Lying will get you somewhere temporarily. That’s old news.

I saw this coverage quite by accident, and found it rather enlightening. I am an average writer, but certainly an advocate of persons being able to express their own opinions and critical thinking on matters – sans the lying.

One comment made by Peter especially caught my attention: “We have to police ourselves.” I am assuming, journalists being who they are – info people – that many of you are familiar with Slate.com. There has been a disturbing practice being taken up by their Social Media Editor, Jeremy Stahl, the last few days. He seems to have taken it upon himself to delete posts and deactivate accounts by posters with whose comments he apparently doesn’t agree with. It is a very controversial topic, and the comments reflect this. I have tested this personally, numerous times, and indeed comments are deleted within seconds and profiles deactivated.

I am attempting to get this addressed, and did receive an email from Jeremy yesterday with some very loosely founded justification for his actions. He attempst to characterize these posts as spamming, trolling, etc. (The only comments which might legitimately qualify as off-topic ones are those in which posters are complaining about his arbitrary and biased editing – but what did he expect?) What he may not realize is that there are screen shots of some of the many deleted posts…

Apparently he needs some re-education on the idea of censorship in the media – and that there is a very narrow margin where it should be exercised. People have a right to take sides, express legitimate concerns, opinions, values, interests etc, and these should not be oppressed by some “anonymous” (as Jeremy is to most) power hungry “journalist”. The author of the story does not leave a contact, although she is an editor of Slate.com (Innovations Editor Katherine Goldstein). If any of you have a contact at Slate which you can provide me, that would be appreciated. Several contacts have already been made, and these efforts will be continued until Jeremy either ceases his lack of tolerance (a great irony since the premise of the story really is one of tolerance) or gets re-educated on how to more professionally apply the power of his position in a public forum.

I am hoping that someone here whose principles weigh greater than politics will help me out. Actually, you’ll be helping out a good number of legitimate posters who are being affected, whether liberal or conservative.

Thank you very much.

Ya, media PR has issues….
Please check out Slate.com Katherine Goldstein’s article. Slate is systematically deleting the comments – as well as the registered Profiles – of the posters who are opposed to gay marriage. They are trying to make it look like the vast majority are in favor. They are even deleting comments with “likes” if the “like” came from a Profile they have deleted. It is DECEPTION to the nth degree. Please google “contacts Slate.com” and “contacts Washington Post” (slates owner) and let them know this IS NOT GOOD JOURNALISM. It is CENSORSHIP and, ironically considering the story, an EXTREME LACK OF TOLERANCE. I am hopeful that some journalist here will have principles that supercede politics and will CALL THEM OUT publicly, Please.

Wow Peter. As a way early adopter of HARO I am glad I caught this. I love that Ryan basically says, I’m a liar but I admit it. So it’s OK. HARO has been a great source that will be untouched on this. As for Ryan, I just hope all his professional lying doesn’t increase his Klout score.

There will always be people who will be dishonest with the media. What a loser-y thing to do to schill a few books.

Hi Peter,

I’m slightly upset to see that my (dissenting) comment has disappeared from this discussion. I understand that you upgraded to Disqus, but it seems as though the rest of the comments have been reprinted in their entirety since then.

If this was an accident, I’d love it if you’d repost it. If the original content has disappeared for good, I’d be happy to send over a screenshot of the comment.

Thanks!
Mark