Media Minds December 2025 Resource: The Feral State of PR
Why has it gotten tougher for journalists to get what they need from us?
As public relations professionals, our blood runs cold while scrolling social media and spotting a journalist’s post that begins, “PR People:” We know someone in our club has stepped in it and now it’s time for all of us to listen and learn.
Traditionally, the relationship between journalists and public relations professionals, or “PRs” as we’re often called, thrived on a symbiotic rhythm. Journalists needed information, PRs provided it. Each relied on the other to tell stories that informed the public and advanced science, medicine and innovation.
Recently, that rhythm has started to sound more like static.
Even in biotech and biopharma circles, reporters are having interactions with PR folks that could be described as a bit…feral – uncoordinated, overwhelming and sometimes combative.
Most research cites the ratio of journalist to PR person to be anywhere from 5 to 7 PR people to every journalist. As newsroom layoffs multiply, this crucial relationship has tilted off balance. That translates into frazzled reporters navigating inbox avalanches and anxious PR teams chasing scarce media oxygen.
What’s changed?
One major shift: the unequal ratio of PR professionals to journalists continues to grow and is expected to grow faster than average over the next 10 years, compounding the volume vs. relationship imbalance. A LinkedIn post from a freelance journalist puts it plainly:
“Just a reminder that you’re not obligated to respond to pitches if you don’t want to, even if a PR is aggressively following up.” – Kimanzi Constable, LinkedIn
Another journalist, Anastassia Gliadkovskaya of Fierce Healthcare, had to post this to her LinkedIn:
“PR folks, it seems this reminder is needed: PLEASE DON’T TEXT ME ABOUT YOUR PITCHES. There’s a reason I removed my phone number from my email signature. You should really never be texting or calling me, unless it’s to coordinate an in-person meet up on the day of. Your pitch is not a higher priority than everyone else’s. If I haven’t responded, it means I’m not interested.”
Yet another journalist made the distinction between journalists and influencers:
“PR’s asking for social handles when inviting you to an event – this is something I’ve noticed over the last couple of weeks. It feels that they’re on the look out for journalists with an active, engaged and public social media profile? I totally get wanting to get double the coverage (two birds, one stone – right?). But if you want influencers, invite them!
In short: journalists are feeling hunted rather than engaged.
Voices from the field
Anjalee Khemlani, former Yahoo Finance health reporter and current freelancer, reflects that she increasingly sees what she calls “lazy PR strategies” in biotech. “Mass blasts, vague ‘Thoughts?’ follow-ups, tone-deaf outreach to irrelevant beats have become the norm,” she says. Her verdict: “If your goal is simply to be heard, that’s archaic … executives need to be thought leaders — if they don’t have something smart to say, that’s where it all falls apart.”
Annalee Armstrong, Senior Editor at BioSpace, echoes the frustration: “When I get these kinds of difficult interactions, I don’t think they expect me to respond. They’re sending a million emails … And then when I do respond, they’re not prepared for it.” She notes that junior-level agency teams often flood inboxes without checking whether a source is actually available for an interview. “If you’re offering a source, make sure that person’s available. Otherwise you’ve wasted everyone’s time.”
The systemic imbalance
Compounding the imbalance of PRs to journalists are the constant rolling layoffs at media organizations, which means a reporter might be ignoring your email because their organization has decided to cut corners by cutting them out of the payroll.
In 2024, more than one-third of journalists reported layoffs or buy-outs at their organizations, according to Muck Rack’s State of Journalism report, as covered in PRmoment.com.
Recently, Paramount (CBS News) laid off 1,000 people while CNN cut 100 staffers in the name of digital transformation, according to Poynter. In October, Wall Street Journal demolished its health and science reporting team, laying off a dozen journalists, including its 35-year veteran and department chief Stefanie Ilgenfritz.
This media layoff trend feeds the loop: fewer journalists + more PR voices = more noise, less meaningful dialogue, and fewer clear story channels. For biotech and biopharma, where signals matter and jargon is dense, this ratio matters.
In our field, stories require deep domain expertise, scientific nuance, and credible spokespeople. Meanwhile, journalists covering biotech in shrinking newsrooms are juggling more beats, with fewer resources, and an increasing deluge of irrelevant pitches.
Relationship reset
What should PR practitioners in biotech do to navigate this “feral” terrain?
Based on the voices above plus recent media-relations best-practice research:
- Do your homework. Know the journalist’s beat, prior work, and timing. One trade-media article advised limiting follow-ups: “If they haven’t responded after two follow-ups, they likely aren’t interested.” BioStrata
- Offer value, not volume. One reporter noted: “If I haven’t responded to your first email, please don’t follow up with ‘Thoughts?’ — I’m thinking about how to delete your email.”
- Respect availability. If your spokesperson isn’t available for an interview, don’t pitch a conversation as if they are.
- Invest in the long game. Relationships still matter more than one-off transactions.
And for journalists: maintaining a go-to list of respected communicators is increasingly important. As Annalee Armstrong said, “There are some amazing PR people in biopharma who I still seek out when I need a trusted source.”
In the biotech context—where every pitch has to clear a higher bar of novelty, relevance, and substance—the mismatch of needs between PR people and journalists can be especially fraught.
PR professionals who invest the time in relevance, expertise and trust will still stand out. Because in science and medicine, credibility still matters. And when the inbox is wild, the best-prepared are more likely to be heard.