 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Truth in Publishing: Blurbs and Acknowledgments, Continued | Comment [1]
Truth in Publishing: Curb Those Blurbs and Syrupy Acknowledgments | Comment [5]
Colleges Are Protected From Failure | Comment [17]
Ripe for the Gripe | Comment [12]
'Rebranding' Engineering | Comment [14]
Featured Articles By the Author
When the Press Calls: Rules for Avoiding Trouble
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.
Posted at 11:01:33 AM on April 22, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: The Phantom Science Debate: Clinton, Obama, McCain
Next: 'Science Rattles the Tin Cup' Draws More Fire
Unfortunately the intellectual level of the very best reporters is somewhere between human scum and cockroach poop. The massness of mass media has gradually produced this decline. Try having an intelligent lunch conversation with one—point after point is mis-named, crammed into a strange ideologically rigid frame, distorted beyond all recognition by the beginnings of some sort of media-unique brain disease. It is a lot like playing Scramble (a mental game derived from Scrabble by applying egg preparation techniques to one’s hearing and writing).
Good techniques include: a) tell the idiots nothing b) pick the best idiots and tell them nothing c) pick the worst idiots and tell them the opposite of the truth knowing they will drift toward truth as they apply various distortions and mis-rememberings d) tell your dog and transcribe his barkings and publish that, comparing it with reporter offering, then choose the dog’s results e) similar techniques. There ARE no safe strategies for dealing with fools. Perhaps kill off the Journalism programs and MBA programs that produce this awful stupidity of culture, writing, “dialog” and exchange of hates.
— Richard Tabor Greene · Apr 23, 05:40 AM · #
Ah, the reasoned judgment of a trained expert. And we wonder why the public thinks academics are useless.
— Owen · Apr 23, 06:42 AM · #
As a former reporter turned into an enthusiastic PR press release writer for a public university, let me say thank you for your wise words about dealing with reporters. Not every reporter means to be an idiot. Some of them are quite nice and even reasonably intelligent, really. You should be able to tell from the questions whether the article is going to make sense. No matter what the scenario, though, talking to a reporter is not the time to get all high falutin’. Just because they don’t know your specialized jargon doesn’t mean they can’t understand basic points if explained correctly and in layman’s terms. It is also useful to remember the following: they are on a deadline – always; they have limited space in which to communicate all your brilliance – sometimes as little as 12 column inches; they don’t usually write the headlines; they aren’t usually involved in the final edit; they may have several other stories to do that day and yours… well, it might not have been their choice to take it. None of that excuses sloppiness, misrepresentation, misquotes or bad judgement, of course. But generally the world of a reporter moves at a faster pace than that of a college professor. The easier you make it for them, the more likely they are to get it right. And for the record, whenever I wrote about a topic I wasn’t sure about, I almost always went over the quotes and even sections of the story with the subject IF I had time and IF the person was sensitive to my deadline needs.
— Epiphany · Apr 23, 09:11 AM · #
I can’t imagine why Richard Tabor Greene is having such a difficult time with the press. He must be such a pleasure to interview.
— Kate · Apr 23, 10:34 AM · #
Really, Professor Greene, between human scum and cockroach poop? One can only imagine the disdain you must have for all of the ignorant students you are forced to deal with every day. You, sir, are an ass.
— Former Ink-stained wretch · Apr 23, 11:07 AM · #
Due to work with our faculty council, I have had numerous occasions to deal with the press recently. I would add one point – you can rule something out of bounds at the outset. If something is confidential, a simple “I can’t say anything about that” will suffice with a reputable reporter.
Be warned: a colleague knew who Deep Throat was back in the ’80s because he got a reaction from an interviewee when he said “It was Mark Felt, right?”
— Frank · Apr 23, 12:12 PM · #
Hey Dan, speak for yourself when you describe the way reporters transcribe taped interviews.
— Terry Murray, veteran medical journalist · Apr 23, 04:09 PM · #
Interesting how the Wretch easily makes the leap from disdain for “journalists” to disdain for students.
Overgeneralize much?
I taught many potential journalists. A whole bunch of them shouldn’t have graduates high school. Not all; just a lot.
— TM · Apr 23, 07:56 PM · #
Interesting that TM doesn’t address the overgeneralizations of the good professor. Greene’s mean-spirited attitude flies off the charts and betrays, in my humble opinion, an inflated sense of himself and his work that could easily render him incapable of reaching most of the students he may be called upon to teach. Yes, it is a generalization, but sometimes one’s own words (i.e. “the intellectual level of the very best reporters,” “Perhaps kill off the Journalism programs and MBA programs that produce this awful stupidity of culture, writing, “dialog” and exchange of hates”) can easily signal a broader disdain for those outside your circle of genius. And by the way, it’s graduated, not graduates. I sincerely hope you weren’t teaching editing to those journalists.
— Former Ink-stained wretch · Apr 24, 08:37 AM · #
Many universities send media outlets brochures with a list of professors whom, they suggest, ought to be called when a story requires expert comment. (“Please be sure to credit….”) In other words, a lot of professors essentially invite the media in. Them’uns don’t get a lotta sympathy from ol’ Jimbo.
— LuckyJim · Apr 24, 01:01 PM · #