As an academic, speaking with reporters can be nerve wracking. The gut-wrench is palpable as you click on the article that follows, unsure of whether the person you spoke with has got it right, or created a train wreck with your name splattered all over it.
Building trust
Over the years, I’ve learnt to to calibrate my expectations and to trust the reporters I speak with to do the job they are paid to do – and in most cases they do it exceptionally well. I’ve also learned the value of developing a trusting relationship with reporters that cuts both ways – they can trust me to be available and provide fast, clear, concise and accurate information; I can trust them to use the information they get from me with sense and integrity.
But a recent incident has left me wondering whether I’m being overly naive in thinking of my relationship with reporters as a two-way street. And surprisingly, it has nothing to do with the malicious misrepresentation of academic nightmares.
Personal guidelines
Although I’ve never formalized this before, I have a fairly clear set of internal guidelines I follow when I’m approached by reporters. If written down, they would probably look something like this:
- The job of a reporter is to tell their story, not yours.
- Reporters are usually on deadline – respect this by responding as fast as possible to requests.
- Respect the professionally and expertise of the person you are speaking with.
- Provide clear, concise and accurate answers to the questions asked.
- Don’t try to use reporters for self-promotion.
- Be just as willing to provide background information as you are to provide quotes.
- Accept that what you say may not fit into the story the reporter is telling.
- Accept that what is written after an interview may not come up to your standards of accuracy, but will be accurate enough in most cases.
- It’s your responsibility to make sure you are understood clearly and accurately.
- Even if the resulting article is a train wreck with your name all over it, the only person likely to remember this in the long run is you.
- Go into interviews with your eyes open – knowing who you are talking with, what they are interested in, and what sort of pieces they write.
- Build relationships with reporters based on trust and respect.
Getting informed articles out
These are of course personal guidelines, and I’m sure some people reading this will disagree strongly with them at some point. But by on large though they work for me, and help me help reporters get informed articles out.
There have been a few occasions where I’ve had had the frustration of seeing my name attached to a story that I would rather not be associated with – although this has been rare. And in most of those cases, I should have known better with what I said, and how I said it.
That’s not the problem that occurred recently though. This is, and it’s an issue that, despite these guidelines, I’m unsure of how to handle it:
Casual disregard
I recently gave an interview to an established and competent reporter on something I’ve been working on for several years (the topic isn’t important). The interview was in response to an urgent “can you help me with this asap” email – not an unusual occurrence. I responded rapidly, and we had a good conversation.
When the article appeared the next day, I realized that I had misrepresented quite an important piece of scientific information in the conversation, and as a result the article was factually incorrect on one point. I’m pretty sure that this was my fault for being too loose in the language I used.
My immediate response was to email the reporter, apologizing profusely, and offering a very minor alteration that would at least render the statement tolerably accurate.
I received no response back.
I resent the email a few days later, acknowledging that it was probably too late for any changes, but mainly to check whether my first email had been received.
Again, no response.
So here’s my dilemma: What is the most appropriate course of action in such a situation where a competent reporter is factually off-base because of something you said, but is disinclined to respond to your emails?
I could obviously contact the reporter’s editor, or write a blog post correcting the piece. But both undermine trust between me and the journalists I work with.
Or I could do nothing, and hope that not too many colleagues spot the error!
The fact remains though that there is an article I had a hand in that still contains a factually incorrect statement. And that bothers me.
What worries me more though is that this type of casual disregard for sources harms the trust that’s necessary for effective reporting. If journalists are to write articles that get the facts right, they need to be able to trust the people they interview. But that trust cuts both ways.
Advice needed!
I’ll still be sticking to my guiding principles when working with reporters. But in the meantime, if anyone has any advice on how to handle being casually discarded once a piece is written, please do tell – especially if you’re a journalist or editor.
Thank you.
Andrew, this is a problem of tolerances. Because journalism moves so fast, there are errors. Lots. All the time. And there are standard ways of handling them. Seldom are they reputation-killers. For you guys, though, the scientists, they can be very dangerous.
It sounds to me like the problem is not really that the public will be misinformed on a point that may well be of little interest to most of them — that’s all in the journalistic game and can be corrected in corrections. The problem is that you may come off looking an ass to those in your community and those few laypeople who, for one reason or another, are relying on that bit of info.
What you need to do, then, is to have a talk with the journalist and see that s/he understands that these corrections that may seem minor are in fact extremely serious to you, and that if s/he wants an ongoing relationship with you as a source you must ask for prompt replies to any of these jumping-up-and-down sorry-correction emails. Even if it’s to let you know that this bit of interview didn’t make it into the story so that you can stop worrying.
In the meantime, if the error is consequential and serious, you need to get in touch with the reporter’s editor and see that they run a correction. Who knows why the reporter didn’t respond – but if you need to correct an important fact, then do it.
Also, I really don’t know about that thing about avoiding self-promotion. Reporters are aware that savvy interviewees are trying to get publicity and spin, and handle the interviewees accordingly. But if the publicity is also a good story, then it’s a good story. I wouldn’t be shy about pushing whatever it is you have to push.
0.02 —
Thanks Amy – this is really helpful.
On the self-promotion bit, I know how the game is played, and I’m fine with that – but I worry that, where (as in my case) the aim should be effective science communication, self-promotion becomes a vested interest that can run counter to supporting solid reporting. For example, if self-promotion is the aim, it’s not worth spending significant time and effort bringing journalists up to speed on a topic, knowing that this will be used to ask informed questions and get informed quotes from others. But if effective communication is the aim, this is a win. And as I write this, I can see our comms folks cringing and thinking “he needs to go back to media training!” 😉
After over 40 years as a reporter, the one thing I know is that I never know enough about anything. When I go to people such as yourself for information, I assume I’m talking to someone who is up to date with the best knowledge in the field. It’s then my responsibility to reflect your input in the article as accurately as possible. On my side, therefore, I imbue a lot of trust in the interview, even if I’ve never spoken to the person before. I assume a certain amount of self-promotion — or, at least, a certain amount of self regard — on the part of the interviewee, though in reality that’s rare, in fact. On your side, then, the responsibility is to be as forthcoming as possible about what you know, and to be square with me about what you don’t know.
Once the article is written, or in the writing stage, it’s incumbent on both sides to have open communications. I make sure everyone I talk to has both my email and a phone I can always be reached at, if there’s a problem. I try and react to it as soon as possible, particularly when there are errors in the information I’m given (major errors are very unusual, but the small errors do happen and they grate on me). This reporter should have responded very quickly and, if they were able to and didn’t, it’s highly unprofessional behavior on their part. Treat it as such. Don’t bother emailing a third time, call him/her up and email the editor.
Brian
Thanks Brian – extremely helpful (and encouraging)