tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4470893183657806979..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: When John Fleck callsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53454356249226555602010-07-30T20:50:40.730-04:002010-07-30T20:50:40.730-04:00Reading Gavin S.'s comment I would agree the h...Reading Gavin S.'s comment I would agree the headline thing can go overboard, and in controversies, you shouldn't miss a chance to at least say something. It also matters if you're just filling in an informational point, in which case you should explain briefly or pass them on if you can think of someone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41241118949890672472010-07-30T20:40:02.266-04:002010-07-30T20:40:02.266-04:00This is all priceless advice. I used to work as a ...This is all priceless advice. I used to work as a mainstream print (and radio) reporter and also helped scientist friends prepare information for dissemination and it's all solid and to the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5416361059007595412010-07-30T13:56:17.409-04:002010-07-30T13:56:17.409-04:00Eli doesn't get a lot of calls from the media....Eli doesn't get a lot of calls from the media. Mostly someone else suggests the media person gets to get in touch with the Bunny and then comes an email from the refer and/or the media type.<br /><br />In that case thinking about what is to be said and boiling it down to a headline has helped a lot. It also means that Eli gets very repetitious, saying the same thing multiple times.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87326676965537872662010-07-30T12:32:49.341-04:002010-07-30T12:32:49.341-04:00"Do not speculate. Speculative answers may co..."Do not speculate. Speculative answers may come back to haunt you."<br /><br />Judiiiiiiithhh! :)Rocconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43488572766031583972010-07-30T11:27:15.672-04:002010-07-30T11:27:15.672-04:00Perhaps oddly enough, I don't agree with a num...Perhaps oddly enough, I don't agree with a number of these points. Some are fine - know who it is you are talking to and why, don't talk for the sake of talking, feel free to suggest better sources etc. But this idea that you have to 'create a headline in advance' is nonsense. Most journalists want to know what the context is for some news item, or the background, they don't need the scientists to be providing the headlines. Indeed, it is when journalists who call and only want a very specific quote such as 'west nile is caused by global warming!' that the worst problems arise. <br /><br />Suggestions that you can't talk to someone when they first call are also off-base. If you have time, talk to people when you can - you don't always get a second chance. But if you are not comfortable talking about your science whenever and to whoever, perhaps you shouldn't be taking any calls at all...<br /><br />Some people seem to get misquoted all the time. Some people hardly at all. Why is that? <br /><br />In looking over media reports for years, the misquotes and mistakes are almost always from people who don't appear to have taken the time to give the proper context and to make sure that the journalist has understood the point. Scientists would do much better to look at these exchanges as chances to build trust and share domain knowledge, rather than as a (possibly antagonistic) interview. In hundreds of calls, I can only recall two that were anything like that.Gavinhttp://www.realclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31335230333384007562010-07-30T03:55:18.751-04:002010-07-30T03:55:18.751-04:00If speculation is involved be sure to say so every...If speculation is involved be sure to say so every time you get that question if not they will use the part where you forgot to point uncertainties or similar things out.<br /><br />Depending on the situation have a "answer-bridge-communicate" ready... If it is an aggressive reporter that talks about things you think is the wrong subject change it. eg...<br /><br />reporter: So despite this interesting results almost no one in the US believe that AGW is real...<br /><br />You: I have heard of this rumour but don't think it holds and any way this new scientificaly published article shows that almost all climate researchers firmly stands behind AGW. This is why it is so important that people get to hear abut the impacts of AGW like with our new study that shows that phytoplankton is down 40 %... this could be a real threat.<br /><br />http://stevebowen.com/on-abc-or-atm/Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39642601294630587812010-07-29T21:41:20.396-04:002010-07-29T21:41:20.396-04:00Hmm, it's not all that different from the advi...Hmm, it's not all that different from the advice Revkin flamed Pachauri for. The only thing I would is that these days one can do a quick google to get a sense of the reporter's prior relevant work.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.com