by Nick Renton AM

Organisations which attempt to charge reporters for publications produced by them will probably have their requests for payment rejected on principle and will thus find that their publications are just ignored.

The writers who would have used them as useful background material, or who would have quoted from them or paraphrased their key arguments, or explained the organisation's views to their readers, will simply produce pieces out of their head or look elsewhere.

In particular, they will turn to material produced by the organisation's critics - material which may well be freely available - and to other information in the public domain which could show up the organisation in a poor light.

All such external sources will be supplemented by the writer's own interpretations and value judgements, as these, too, do not need to rely on material from the organisation concerned. The writer may have to second-guess the views of the organisation.

IGNORING THE VALUE OF FREE PUBLICITY

It should be obvious that making it harder for writers to quote material accurately (as distinct from relying on secondary sources) is thus never a good idea. In effect encouraging writers to devote less space to an organisation's views than might otherwise have been the case seems extremely foolish - the value of the publicity foregone could be many times greater than the marginal production cost of the material involved.

Furthermore, unsympathetic analyses from writers who have been annoyed by the attitude of the organisation towards them may in turn generate further adverse publicity as the harsh views start to take on a life of their own.

The organisation's publications may have been expensive to produce in the first place and a desire to recover their cost by selling them for a reasonable figure would be understandable. But the organisation may just finish up with the worst of all possible worlds - no money from a sale; a boycott of the material or the organisation; and a lost opportunity to advance its cause.

To deal with this problem by giving out only a limited number of free copies can be a dangerous solution. It would probably antagonise those left off the free list but who get to hear of its existence - especially if subsequently a specific request for a free copy is refused.

On subsequent occasions they might not even bother to ask, so that the organisation might have needlessly created a long term problem for itself.

RUDENESS

A good way for an organisation to turn a friend into an enemy is to counter a telephoned request for a free copy of some item with an impertinent personal question, such as "Can't you afford this?"

This is likely to provoke a response: "If that is your attitude, I am terminating this conversation - and your organisation will have to take the consequences."

RESEARCHERS

A desire for information can also come from persons who are preparing a speech, researching for a book, drafting a submission or carrying out some other like task. Some of these inquirers might, if encouraged to do so, even be willing to repay any courtesy accorded to them by the organisation by analysing its material free of charge and providing an objective input.