Frequently Asked Questions
Compiled by Chris Sigurdson
This is a list of questions that some people have raised during media relations training. Sometimes these comments are legitimate inquiries for clarification. More often they're taking a free shot. If that's the case, here are our responses.
The media are biased and I don't want to work with them.
Most reporters want to report accurate stories and they rely on sources to play straight. There are checks and balances with editors and news directors that are supposed to catch and reduce bias and the interjection of the reporter's personal views. Outside of the national celebrity journalists and some news entertainers, most reporters prize their objectivity and independence. As you begin to monitor local reporters' work, look for evidence of bias. If it exists, you can plan for it and work past it.
I don't like how they sensationalize everything.
All of us have been conditioned by how news is hyped on television and in commercials. Popular media portrayals of howling packs of journalists don’t help either. Most of the time though, articles about university and agency research and outreach are done in an informative, "just-the-facts-please" tone. That won't apply of course, if there really is a controversy or strong difference of opinion.
They always get it wrong.
Part of the purpose of media relations training is to help you help them get it right. Refining your message, providing supporting materials, being available for follow-up calls are aimed at making sure your message gets through, and reducing the potential for reporter error.
I've been burned in the past.
If it was an error or an honest difference of opinion, the solution is to keep going. There's a reporter who once said that the best way to be stuck with a misquote is to only do one article. In other words, if you only do one story, that's it, that's the public record. As you do more interviews on the topic, the truth will come out. People will begin to remember your message, to get your points.
If you feel a particular reporter through negligence or maliciousness burned you, there's no obligation for you to work with that reporter again. Don't cut yourself off from the whole newspaper or television news department — that only hurts you — but you don't have to work with people you know you can't trust.
The media suck.
No more than most people.
I'm afraid my job/reputation is at risk.
If the institution wants you to work with the media, the people in charge need to understand the environment. Working with the public through the media is not without some risk. Not everybody is going to see your work as a valuable endeavor nor will they always agree with you. That's a given.
But as long as you follow our training, and you don't speculate or embellish outside your area of expertise, you'll be fine. Make sure you manage upward by letting the news office and your supervisors know what you're doing. Also, seek advice and counsel when dealing with controversial subjects. Your communications office can help, and peers and bosses also may have good insights.
Bottom-line, most administrators know the value of working with the media and do so themselves. Most will understand and sympathize with what you're doing.
It's not my job.
I would suggest that it is. If you want people to better understand your discipline, to value the work that you and your collegues do, to support Extension, research and education funding, to apply to graduate school, to build on your work or just move all of us a little farther ahead, you need to get involved. People will always need to hear from the folks on the front lines to truly understand what's important and why. If you don't do it, who will?
I'm afraid I will be perceived as a glory hound or my work will be trivialized.
One of the biggest constraints we face in getting faculty and staff to engage the public through the media is the guff given out from their peers. Usually it's scientists taking potshots at other scientists. That has been changing over the last few years as scientists and administrators realize how important the public understanding of science is to continued support. Also, solid or important work is treated as such by the media.
There will be times when it takes the media and the public a little while to catch on, and it's usually because of how something is presented. Remember a few years ago when everyone was chuckling over the idea of plant stress? We heard jokes about rose psychotherapy and so forth. But eventually the concepts of plant response to drought, disease and environmental factors got through and it's no longer a humorous novelty.
It takes too much time.
Anything worth doing takes time. Staff can help with backgrounders and setting up interviews and running some interference, but it will take some of your time and it's time well spent. Some directors are surprised by how enjoyable being interviewed by a knowledgeable reporter can be. And they learn things, too.
Why can't your office handle it? They're the media experts.
As I said, we'll help, with backgrounders and setting up interviews and running some interference, but the good reporters will always want to talk to you. Think of it as a primary source in research rather than a secondary source. And there’s less chance for confusion if they can check their assumptions with you.
I don't believe it's worth it.
Even if I don't convince you, let me assure you that your boss thinks it’s worth it. And that includes most administrators.
Reporters won't let me read it before publication/air.
The media have an obligation to their readers to be as independent as possible. Many reporters won't show sources articles before publication because they don't want sources to argue about tone, word choice and other elements. Reporters often will check facts for accuracy, though, and that's what you should aim for. Let reporters know that you'll welcome follow-up calls and fact-checking. Make sure they know how to reach you after business hours because that's when editors ask questions.
The best strategy is making sure they get it right the first time. Probe for understanding at the end of interviews, re-state key concepts and provide additional materials to help make sure you get your points across.
They don't know anything when they call. I have to keep answering the same basic questions.
Reporters at larger media outlets have the luxury of specializing and sometimes are as versed in the subject as you are. Other reporters, especially general assignment writers, are generalists and have to start from scratch on almost every article. You’ll have to work with different reporters at their level, not yours.
If you are getting a lot of calls and answering some of the same basic questions over and over, work with the news office to prepare a backgrounder page or put one on the Web. At least make sure they have a copy of the news release if there is one. It's perfectly acceptable to provide introductory materials to reporter and ask them to read it in advance of the interview. Be aware that sometimes deadlines can also affect how much advance research a reporter can do.
The media are biased and I still don’t want to work with them.
Most people can learn to work with the media to achieve the mutual objectives of informing and engaging the public. Some people won't, or they just can't be very effective at it. Perhaps your heart's not in it. If that's the case, then don't do it. But make sure you encourage the people who can.