Fake experts are not just a PR problem. They are also a trust problem. For whom, you may ask? For journalists, for publishers, for genuine PRs, and for readers who expect the advice they see in the media to come from real people with real experience.
It has landed right in the busiest place in media relations, the inbox.
This is where Synapse comes in. Journalists already have too many emails, too many irrelevant pitches and way too many “just following up”.
On top of it all, they also have to ask: is this expert even real?
Right, not ideal…
The inbox has become a free-for-all
Charles Russell, CEO & Founder at Synapse – The Stories Marketplace has talked about this topic a lot recently, and for good reason.
“The fact is, anyone can get a journalist’s email address and pitch them a story, meaning inboxes are not just overcrowded, but now dangerous places for journalists, full of time bombs ready to go off,” he says in one of his LinkedIn posts.
That does not mean most PRs are doing anything wrong. Far from it.
There are thousands of brilliant PRs doing proper, ethical media relations every day. They know journalists, check their spokespeople, care about accuracy, and most importantly, they understand what journalists need.
The problem is that bad actors make everyone’s job harder.
Journalists lose time checking people who should never have reached them in the first place, with publishers facing reputational risk. On the other hand, real PRs get ignored because their good story sits in someone’s overcrowded inbox as if it doesn’t matter.
Why does ‘fake experts’ topic matter?
Fake experts damage more than just a story, but they damage trust altogether.
If a journalist sees advice from someone who does not exist, or someone with no real credentials, that creates a bad image about the publication. It also damages the wider PR industry’s reputation, even when the pitch didn’t come from a real PR at all.
This is why publishers are now taking this issue seriously. Reach plc has introduced clearer processes around expert verification, and PR bodies, including CIPR and PRCA have urged journalists to check PR sources and credentials where concerns arise.
This adds an additional job to an already busy day.
Journalists still need expert comments and case studies. They still need useful insight, fast. What they do not need is to waste half an hour working out whether a person exists.
Verification cannot sit on journalists alone
“Just do more due diligence” sounds simple.
In reality, it is another task on top of writing, editing, sourcing, publishing, updating, checking, and trying to keep up with the news cycle.
Verification matters, and the media relations process needs to make verification easier, not slower.
On Synapse, PRs should have the basics ready before they pitch: a clear expert bio, a website or company profile, LinkedIn or social profile link, relevant credentials, a headshot, contact details, clear response availability and what their experts can actually talk about.
And all of it is important, because it is how you build trust before the journalist has to ask.
Good PRs should not lose out because of bad practice
This is the awkward part.
Naturally, when trust drops, journalists go back to the PRs they already know. That is understandable. But it also makes it harder for newer PRs, smaller agencies, freelancers, and in-house teams to build media relationships.
That is not good for the industry, because journalists need fresh voices. So the answer cannot be “only speak to people you already know forever”. That shuts out good people and limits the stories that get told. Media relations should not be limited.
So now, we ask how we can change all that? The answer is: a place where journalists know the PRs have been verified, and where experts come with the information needed to assess them quickly. Journalists need a place where communication does not rely on a public inbox that anyone can pile into.
That is where Synapse comes in.
How does Synapse help tackle “fake experts”?
Every PR and journalist on Synapse is hand-verified before they get access to the platform. Our expert database adds another layer, helping journalists find credible experts uploaded by verified PRs, with all the useful profile information in one place.
Journalists can search by things like:
- Sector
- Company
- Keyword
- Region
- Channel
- Response speed
- Interview format
They can see the details they need, then contact the PR behind the expert directly through Synapse.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Communication always happens through verified PRs and journalists. And the best part is that there aren’t random emails or suspicious “experts” that appeared five minutes ago.
Just a safer, faster way to connect.
Trust is now a workflow issue
Media relations have always been about relationships, and that’s what we are all about at Synapse. But now, trust also needs to be built into the workflow.
Synapse helps both sides move faster without skipping the important checks. Journalists can source expert comments from verified PRs, and PRs can get their genuine experts in front of the right people without the constant fight against the inbox. As per the Synapse Yearly Report 2025, our own performance data shows that 55% of pitches on the platform receive journalist interaction, while 70% of journalist requests are accepted by PRs.
That tells us a very important thing: when the environment is more relevant, people respond, and when the process is cleaner, good stories have a better chance.
No fakery. Just better media relations.
We all know that fake experts are not going away overnight, but the industry can make it much harder for them to succeed.
Publishers can tighten how they check experts, and PRs can focus on updating their expert information. On the other hand, journalists can ask the right questions.
Platforms like Synapse can create safer spaces where verified professionals work together without the need to deal with crowded inboxes.
Because journalists do not need more emails, PRs do not need more barriers, and the media definitely does not need more fake experts.
It needs real people, real expertise, and better ways to get good stories told.
