Media Then and Now: What has really changed in Media Relations?

The media landscape has changed dramatically over the past decade. News moves faster, brands have more ways to communicate directly with their audiences, and journalists are expected to make sense of an increasingly crowded information space.

Yet, despite all the new channels, tools and platforms, one question remains: what makes a story worth telling?

For our first interview of (B)OLD NEWS, we spoke with Bojan Stojkovski, a journalist and consultant with more than a decade of experience covering technology, business and innovation across Southeast and Central and Eastern Europe.

Stojkovski is Editor-in-Chief of IT.mk and IT Logs. His work has also appeared in international publications including Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, ZDNet, Cybernews and Balkan Insight. He covers everything from artificial intelligence and startup ecosystems to energy and the broader impact of technology on society and the economy.

We wanted to understand how the relationship between journalists and PR professionals has evolved, what makes a pitch worth opening, and whether the industry has become too focused on securing coverage rather than creating stories that deserve it.

Looking back ten years, what is the biggest change you have noticed in the relationship between journalists and PR professionals?

The biggest change is speed. Ten years ago, we had a much more traditional media cycle. Today, information can become outdated within a few hours, and journalists receive dozens, if not hundreds, of news announcements and press releases every day.

At the same time, I don't think good relationships have disappeared. If anything, they have become more valuable. When a PR professional understands what you cover, sends you something relevant and doesn't treat you as just another contact in a database, you notice it immediately.

With social media, faster news cycles and an overwhelming amount of content, does the personal relationship between a journalist and a PR professional still carry the same weight?

Yes, and its importance may be even greater now. But a personal relationship doesn't mean a journalist will automatically publish something simply because of that relationship.

Trust matters most. If I know a particular PR professional won't send me something just to meet a monthly quota, but because they genuinely believe the story is relevant to me and the publication I represent, I'm much more likely to respond.

Almost every brand now has direct access to its audience through Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok or its own channels. Has this reduced the need for traditional media, or has earned media become more valuable?

Brands can now say what they want, when they want and how they want. But that doesn't mean people will automatically trust them.

That's precisely why I think earned media coverage has become more valuable. A relevant, independent story can do something a brand struggles to do on its own: give credibility to an event or product.

From a journalist's perspective, what do PR professionals do that makes your job easier, and what frustrates you the most?

What helps me most are PR professionals who understand the publication and the journalist they're communicating with. A clear idea, concrete information, an available spokesperson and a reasonable deadline for responses. That's practically everything I need.

What frustrates me most are copy-paste pitches, follow-up emails five minutes after the first email, and messages asking, "Did you see our news?" If the story is good, there's no need to force it.

Do you think there is more pitching than genuine communication today? Has PR become too focused on securing coverage rather than developing a relevant story?

Yes, and I think that's one of the bigger problems. Sometimes a pitch is written as if the journalist's only job is to copy and paste the press release. But a journalist's job is not to be an extension of a PR department.

If you want a publication, you have the option of paid placement. If you want a story to be covered organically by a media outlet, you need to have a story worth covering.

What makes a good story today? Do brands need a stronger angle, a clear point of view or a human element to earn media attention?

Absolutely. Today, "Company X launched a new product" is rarely enough.

There needs to be something more, and in many cases, it comes down to the fundamentals of journalism: why does it matter, what does it change, and who does it affect?

Is there an interesting person behind the story, a compelling number, a conflict, a trend or a broader social context? Particularly in the technology industry, where there's a new startup, AI tool or investment almost every day, context becomes the story.

If you could give one piece of advice to a brand or PR professional looking to build a strong, long-term relationship with journalists, what would it be?

Don't start by asking, "How can we get you to publish this?" Start by asking, "Why would this be interesting to the reader?"

If you solve the second question, the first becomes much easier. And one more thing: get to know the journalists you work with. You don't have to chase every contact for coverage. Sometimes the best media relationships are those where the first few messages don't ask for anything in return.

There is a recurring idea throughout this conversation that deserves more attention than it usually gets in the PR industry: the difference between having something to announce and having something worth telling.

Too often, media relations is measured by the number of placements secured, the reach generated or the estimated value of coverage. These metrics can be useful, but they don't necessarily tell us whether the communication was meaningful.

A brand can secure ten media mentions without giving its audience anything worth remembering. It can distribute dozens of press releases without offering a single compelling reason to stop and read.

This is where the distinction between distributing information and developing a story becomes important.

The challenge for PR professionals is not simply to get a brand into the media. It is to understand what makes that brand relevant beyond its own commercial interests.

That requires a different starting point. Instead of asking what a company wants to communicate, we should ask what is happening in its market, what is changing for its audience, what problem deserves attention, or what perspective might add something meaningful to an existing conversation.

Not every story needs to be revolutionary. Not every announcement needs to carry a grand social message. But every pitch should have a reason to exist beyond the fact that a company wants attention.

There is also an important distinction between controlling a message and earning credibility. On its own channels, a brand controls what it says and how it presents itself. In independent media, that control no longer belongs to the brand. The story must stand on its own merits, and an editor or journalist must find a reason to pursue it.

That independence is precisely what gives earned media its value.

For us at Provence, this is what good media relations should be built around. Not just contacts, mailing lists or well-written press releases, but an understanding of context, timing and the connection between what a brand wants to say and what its audience has a reason to hear.

Relationships matter. Trust matters. But neither can permanently compensate for a story that has nothing to say.

Perhaps the most useful question to ask before any media outreach is not "Where can we get this published?" but "What makes this story worth publishing in the first place?"

If we don't have an answer, we may not be ready to send it.