Comments on: MacCracken: The New York Times quote did not represent my views, and it did not even represent the reporter’s attempt to portray my comments

By: Jenna

Jenna — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:44:17 +0000

I agree with what Gary says. The concept of “fair and balanced” has really done all of us a disservice as it has seriously impacted our day to day media coverage.

The real issue with this “always need the other side” component is that it not only justifies what are really extreme arguments, but reporters seem to be really picking and choosing what qualifies as “the other side” in a way that must be political. For example – why aren’t even more extreme view points solicited more often? There are people who think an alien culture came to Earth and started life here, but you never hear their position reflected in creationism vs. evolution debates. My point is: reporters are picking and choosing what they say are “legitimate” positions in service to a politically motivated, outdated tenet of journalism that has long been irrelevant.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:43:52 +0000

The problem with the press is that it feels forced to be “fair and balanced” and so reporters try to see the opposite of an issue, when there really isn’t one, ie climate change is real vs climate change is natural, or inevitable. The NYT report is just another sympotom of the news media’s equivocation at the expense of honesty. Wait till geoengineering becomes a big issue, and see how it’s covered.

for more
climatesecurity.blogspot.com

By: Kate Cell

Kate Cell — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:33:03 +0000

Helpful tip – the Union of Concerned Scientists have a book, “A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Media.” There’s a presentation based on that on their website – see http://www.ucsusa.org/ ssi/ resources/ how-scientists-can-work.html. UCS runs workshops based on this work at professional meetings, too, so check your program to see if there’s one at your next conference.

Full disclosure – I work with UCS to help them engage economists in their climate program.

By: A Siegel

A Siegel — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:24:45 +0000

1. Good reach out to Mike and good follow-up.

2. Best approach, it seems, is to have a longer discussion on “background”, which enables reaching some understanding, with an agreement to ‘move to’ directly quotable material or for the reporter to return asking “can I quote you with X?”

3. Would be interesting to see article as submitted vs as published. Perhaps the original article got it “right” and the editing is what distorted.

4. In any event, did any US newspaper put this report on the front page? I haven’t seen / heard of any yet.

By: Deborah Fisher

Deborah Fisher — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:45:23 +0000

I’ve done this too.

It’s tempting to think that if you talk more, the reporter will better understand your position and better synthesize it into something digestible.

Reporters don’t create meaning, though.

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:55:14 +0000

In 1990, I came very close to starting a new small business: a media training school for scientists coming to testify before Congress or working on policy issues. Talking to the press is very tricky business, we have all been misquoted. Stephen Schneider used to say, “Either talk to the press all the time, or not at all.” What he meant was, either have a solid relationship with a reporter to ensure you are fully understood, and that you have ground rules: know when you are “on background” and when it is fair game to quote you. If Mike had made it doubly clear that he was “on background” — and gave permission only for certain quotes — this quote would not have been used. Also, it’s important to note that Andy Revkin would have been the one to cover the report but he was in Korea on another story. Broder is not as steeped in the climate issue as Revkin. So there was shared “blame” here. Lessons learned by all. And Joe’s advice is good. Don’t let reporters badger or con you into contradicting yourself, going too far out on a limb, over-speculating, or saying anything at all that you wouldn’t be proud to see in print and show your mother or your kids, or your boss. I still think we need a media school on how to talk about climate change for the MSM but also the indy media as well. All too often, they get it wrong. And we need to train scientists on how better to talk with the media in an ongoing conversation. Any entrepreneurs out there want to start a biz?

By: DavidCOG

DavidCOG — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:59:09 +0000

Are we going to have a 'Philip Cooney' crawl out of the woodwork at the NYT?

By: jbrosius

jbrosius — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:27:31 +0000

resource-media is the name of the PR firm used to promote this. They were paid to talk up these reports and send notices. They used an experienced handler to get the info out. Sometimes papers push back a little when handlers tell theem what to say.
This group is well recognized for the silicon implant scare and the alar apple scare.
They have not had this account very long. Resource media was part of EMS

By: paulm

paulm — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:32:26 +0000

They do this on purpose.

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:01:08 +0000

So this is an important lesson to anyone who talks to the media. Keep it short …

It also applies to those who have more modest interactions with the media, in particular those who write Letter to the Editor.

In one of my first letters I was rebutting a couple of timber industry talking points regarding forest management and wildlife conservation that had been prominently highlighted in a front-page article on the Old Growth Wars out here in the Pacific Northwest.

I made the mistake of trying to rebut *a couple of points* rather than to write a very short and concise rebuttal of a single point, one short enough to be published in full (or close to it).

They published my letter but whacked out about 1/2-2/3 of my words. In doing so, they managed a perfect quote mine which managed to make my comments convey exactly the opposite meaning which I’d intended.

A hard-learned lesson.

As MacCracken hopefully understands now, he should’ve hammered home the point that the report’s a good comprehensive survey of available info, but the Bush administration stopped further research stopped further research STOPPED FURTHER RESEARCH, pounding that single point into the reporter’s head and refusing to allow the reporter to divert the interview elsewhere.