I commented on the post right away. It's ironic that the technique Stamm dislikes so much (following the news on Google and reacting quickly to provide information for reporters) is exactly how I found out about his article and why I commented immediately after it was posted. Lots of other people commented too.
Interestingly, in the same week that the Regan article came out, I was interviewed on MSNBC about Newsjacking. The reporter who interviewed me, JJ Ramberg from the MSNBC Your Business program, had nothing but praise for how newsjacking can benefit small businesses.
Alan Stamm says in his Ragan article: "Grabbing brazenly for online attention via topic du jour opportunism positions the perpetrator as a bottom-feeder. It's the opposite of "earned media," PR jargon for company profiles, quotes in news-reaction roundups and other coverage obtained the old-fashioned way."
However, JJ Ramberg said to me on air after I explained newsjacking: "I love this because it is much more likely that [a reporter] will call upon you if you can fit into a story they’re doing than when you’re trying to make news yourself."
Who is correct?
I've found that people like Stamm who don't understand newsjacking and who have negative views are reacting to the seemingly "bad" connotation based on similar words like "carjacking" and "hijacking" which decidedly are bad. But they don't bother to learn what newsjacking really is by reading my book or having me explain what the technique is.
What's changed recently to make newsjacking possible is that Google now indexes in real-time. That allows a timely blog post to be seen by journalists as they search for more information on a topic. Real-time is the key here. Yet nearly all PR people are in campaign mode rather than real-time mode, so those like us who understand newsjacking have an advantage.