It’s not unusual for academic specialists to be disappointed with journalistic reports of their work or fields of speciality. From their perspective, press accounts, in print or on air, often err on big or little factual matters, lack balance, and convey
unwarranted assumptions — among other shortcomings. So, doctor, when a reporter calls about your hot paper or a public issue on which you’re an expert, how can you boost the odds for a wholesome outcome?
First, let’s eliminate the silent option, which some researchers have taken in the belief that their words are likely to be mangled, to the detriment of public understanding, and possibly to their own professional reputation. Assuming no scandal is involved, academic institutions covet public visibility. Let’s attribute that to their zest for public service. Maybe it has something to do with fund raising. In any case, countless universities and research organizations send reporters directories of staff expertise with invitations to call for assistance, comments, etc., when working on a story. The management wants its professors to meet the press. And most are willing to go along.
When the reporter calls for a telephone discussion or a face-to-face meeting, what should you do?
First, agree in a friendly manner to provide whatever assistance you can. But ask the reporter to describe the topic of interest and what information he/she wants you to provide. If the reporter is from a news organization with a reputation for integrity, it’s safe to assume that you’re not being exploited for some devious purpose. If the publication has a track record for brazen partisanship, be wary, and even uncooperative if questions are suspiciously framed.
If the reporter is taking notes, speak slowly and repeat essential points. Shorthand is virtually non-existent in the American press. If the conversation is being taped,
speak slowly and repeat essential points. Transcription is a laborious process, and the reporter is more likely to skip around in listening to the recording than to transcribe the whole.
On specialized matters beyond the reporter’s full understanding (of which there are bound to be many), don’t be snooty. Try to explain in the simplest terms possible. It’s often beneficial to follow up an interview with an e-mail that covers complex points. On deadline, it’s comforting to have that at hand.
Finally, for print interviews, try for an agreement to have your quotes and references to you read back prior to publication, with the understanding that corrections will be made at your request. Many news organizations and reporters (myself included) won’t go along with that arrangement, since second thoughts often arise, distort the interview, and slow down the production process. But it’s worth a try.
Follow these rules and you’ll reduce, but not eliminate, the odds for an unhappy outcome. Good luck.
