Engaging with the media is difficult. And it feels as though it’s getting harder. But is this really the case, or do we simply need to up our game?

As of early 2024, reporters only replied to 3.43% of the stories pitched to them, according to a report from Propel. The same survey revealed that journalists, on average, opened less than half of the pitches they received.

To bottle down the findings for readers: your email is unlikely to be read whatsoever and, even if it is, the chances of it garnering a reply are slim to none.

I’ll admit, on the face of it, that’s a bleak snapshot of the media landscape from the perspective of a PR. But, for the purposes of balance, I’ll offer the media a defence (of sorts):

According to Muck Rack’s 2025 State of Journalism report, only three percent of journalists reported always receiving relevant pitches. 47%, meanwhile, rarely or never receive pitches relevant to their work.

It would seem, then, that driving this sizeable media pitch response-gap, as highlighted by Propel, is an even larger rift between the focus of the stories pitched and the interests of the journalists contacted, as recorded by Muck Rack.

So, what do we do? How do we bridge these gaps? Put simply: we need to offer relevant pitches to the journalists we’re contacting.

That requires an awareness of, and an appreciation for, the editorial priorities and interests of the outlets they’re reporting on behalf of, as well as they’re own media agendas. At BlueSky Education, we recognise can be difficult to chart and follow, and so whenever possible we look to do that for you. From fireside chats, to 1-2-1 Q&As, and – the latest of our resources – a full-scale media conference (taking place in London in October), we source and share insights into the mindsets of many of biz-ed media’s key voices.

In the latest 1-2-1 Q&A, I sat down with Jonathan Moules from the Financial Times. Since joining the FT in 1999, Jonathan has worked across a number of patches, covering an array of subjects. Our readers will, unquestionably, be very familiar with his coverage of the business education sector. Currently a writer and newsletter editor, Jonathan took the time give us an insight his career at the FT, his work today, and how covering business schools has shaped his view of the industry:

Could you tell our readers about yourself and your background, and offer a brief overview of your career?

JM: I have been a business writer since discovering a passion for journalism while studying economics at Liverpool university, and have been doing this at the Financial Times since joining (in New York) in 1999. At the FT, I've been a beat reporter, a feature writer, a podcaster, a desk editor, a video presenter and (most recently) a newsletter editor and writer, covering banking, telecoms and tech, the UK business market, entrepreneurship and business education.

How has having covered business schools for the FT shaped your view of the industry?

JM: The most striking thing for me about business education is how it has both become less relevant, with the waning of the MBA qualification in corporate life, and more important, as in the transformations caused by digital revolutions like AI makes leadership ability and entrepreneurial thinking even more important than in an industrial age.

In your current role as a newsletter writer and editor, how has your focus/agenda evolved? Is there a place for b-school input within this space?

JM: One of my recent jobs has been to take on editing the FT's business education newsletter. I have refocused it to appeal more to our core readership in this area – the academics and schools, and those looking to study for an MBA or other business masters course – and rebranded it Business School Insider. The result has been a big uplift in subscribers. I still write about business education for the FT, including news pieces on the UK market, profile interviews with interesting alumni and reports on the state of the MBA, executive education and leadership training markets, though this is now handled primarily by my colleague Andrew Jack from New York.

You still contribute to the FT’s Biz-Ed editorial output – could you outline for readers what that looks like?

JM: See my previous answer. Much of my writing now is driven by the content requirements for our various ranking reports, but topics I also cover are apprenticeships and the UK business school market.

How should business schools look to engage with you in a way that is useful to your writing?

JM: Email is usually best, or a call, particularly if it is breaking news. Contact me well ahead of time if you want to pitch a piece for one of the ranking reports because these have long commissioning lead times.

Is there anything specific about how you work that schools often don’t realise?

JM: There is a lot of news that is really only of interest to the business education world, particularly new courses.

What do you think distinguishes FT business school-related content with other sources?

JM: The FT is global and independent of the business school world. We write stories about the MBA because our readers understand what that means, but we write about them only if the issue is one that a broader audience can relate to rather than those either teaching or studying for the qualification.

In a rapidly evolving media landscape – with, as Jonathan notes, a lot of news items all vying for our interest – it pays to know what’s on the minds of those responsible for covering the topics most important to business schools. With that in mind, can you really afford not to be at the BlueSky Media Connect conference?

Author: Jonny Stone

Jonny delivers impactful PR results using an evolving network of essential media contacts, from national newspapers like Forbes, The Guardian, the Financial Times and The Telegraph, to specific trade editors such as PIE News, QS Top Universities, We Are The City and University World News. He is committed to helping more ambitious institutions reach international media goals.