Here's another in our quick series trying to debunk a few PR myths and misunderstandings.

This is a true story - a comment I received some time ago from a new client:

"I don't understand. I gave the journalist all the information I could - our brochure, annual report, even a copy of the presentation I gave at that conference last month - and they still got it wrong!"

The moral of the story? Less is more.

Information overload is a sure fire way to confuse (or simply turn off) a busy journalist under deadline. If the reporter has to struggle to find your point of view in a swathe of corporate literature, or sift through a 900-word email to get the facts and simple three-line quote that's needed, then you cannot expect them to write a good article that accurately reflects the facts and your views - or even to write one at all.

It's much better to find out exactly what they need and for you to supply it succinctly, efficiently and professionally.

They need an article or opinion piece? Fine, that probably means 600-800 words or so and a picture. They need to know what you thought about that Government announcement this morning? That probably means two or three short sentences max in a quick email (or better still, over the phone right now).

By all means put annual reports, brochures, presentations, previous press cuttings and a rich source of additional information onto your website (for example, within your News Centre) and offer links to it. But a parcel of your finest colour brochures will never be a suitable substitute for getting straight to the point.

To many experienced communicators, these 'PR myths' (well, more misunderstandings maybe) probably seem very basic. But I'm often asked these questions, so I guess there is value in just knocking them off, one by one. Here's another frequent query... it cropped up again just yesterday:

"But I said it was off the record! Why have they landed me right in it? And what do you have to say to stop a journalist writing anything?"

'Off the record' must be three of the worst heart-sinking words a journalist ever hears. It's supposed to mean that nothing they are told can then be reported. It's an attempted gagging order that aims to stop a journalist doing their job.

Talking to people on our media training sessions, it's clear that their experience of 'off the record' is just as disastrous. It's not like on the telly. Too often, it's a plea blurted out at the end of a unguarded rant or indiscretion, in the hope that the fast-regretted words will somehow vanish from the journalist's memory and notepad. We all have those 'Oops' moments. But claiming 'off the record' at that point is a waste of time and usually never works.

In fact, it's very rare that 'off the record' ever needs to be used.

If you have important but sensitive background information that a journalist probably should know but that cannot appear in print upon pain of (your) death, there may sometimes be scope to agree a confidential briefing with the journalist if they are someone you already know and trust. You will obviously need their promise to respect that confidentiality before you start spilling the beans...

But if something is so sensitive that it cannot be discussed openly, then it's probably best not to say anything at all. Discretion is the better part of valour and all that.

Your best bet is to find out what the journalist needs to know (and what they know already), and decide on how you want to respond without resorting to the awful "No comment". If you really, really can't comment on something right now, explain that truthfully, find out what you can say as an acceptable holding statement and/or agree a date/time when you can talk more openly.

"If I agree to that interview, I want to check what they're going to print before it goes to press..."

Sorry, but dream on. Most journalists will resist very strongly any attempt by anyone outside their publication to influence or in any way exert editorial control over what they have written.

As one reporter at Property Week told me indignantly a while ago when someone had apparently asked for the chance to check in advance what would be published: "I don't tell them how to do their job! I will not be told how to do mine."

The only journalist I know who ever offers my clients the chance to look at what she's written to ensure the facts are correct is Jan Ambrose, editor of the RICS Building Control Journal. But she is entirely and wonderfully unique!

If you're worried about being misquoted, or that a journalist may have got the wrong end of the stick, then there are better ways of making sure the facts come out as they should.

Demanding to check the copy before it goes to press is just seen as an attempt at censorship, so please don't even ask!