NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/bit/listserv/statl/2341

Text File | 1993-01-08 | 3.5 KB | 63 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!CORNELLA.BITNET!MIK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:25:04 EST
Sender:       STATISTICAL CONSULTING <[e-mail]>
From:         mike shapiro <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Public Presence of Statisticians
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri,
              8 Jan 1993 18:37:16 GMT from <[e-mail]>
Lines: 50

Re:  Statisticians and the Mass Media

     I've got some experience with this; so, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

     First, the best way to get reporters to call statisticians is to get on the
of experts.   There are several ways to do that.  One would be for a statistics
association to send around a list of statisticians willing to talk to the media,
complete with phone numbers, affiliations and a list of topics the person is
willing to talk about.  This needs to be in everyday language.  Reporters are
unlikely to know that they need an expert in spline regression or whatever.  SIP
(Scientists Institute for Public Information) also has a service in which they
provide reporters names of experts in an area.
     The people who are on the list need to understand how reporters
work.  First, you will get calls from reporters on deadline about things you
really don't know anything about or want to talk about.  The reporter will
need an immediate reply (like in an hour).  It's best to try to point the
reporter in the right direction.  But don't expect too much.  Broadcast
people may want you to be a talking head.  Even in the best of
circumstances you will have a minute or two to explain a complex issue to
an untrained audience.  A typical nightly news show will give you 15 to
30 seconds.  Don't go in there with a goal of educating people.  Often the
best you can do is let people know that this is more complicated than they
think and give a quick example.  Not necessarily a bad thing.
     Good newspaper reporters can be more rewarding to work with for
a couple reasons.  The best of them (and there are few of those) will take
the time to try and understand what you are talking about.  They will
generally not let you preview their stories.  But a good trick is to do the
interview on the condition that they read their notes back to you when
you are done.  They will hate it, but you'd be surprised how many
misunderstandings that clears up. When I was a reporter I was the
newsroom math whiz because I knew how to calculate percent increase.
That's the level of knowledge you're dealing with.
     The other advantage to working with good  newspaper reporters is
that some broadcast reporters actually read something beside Variety
(again rare).  They will read the newspaper article, perhaps learn
something and maybe call you when a similar story comes up.
     Finally, you have to have a thick skin.  Even when reporters do a
good job, an idiot editor may put a totally bizarre headline on the story.
(A friend of mine wrote a story about a therapist who counseled men who
beat their wives.  An editor headlined the story "If you beat your wife this
man can help.").  By and large the news media in this country is not very
sophisticated about anything and do a miserable job with everybody.  It's
nothing personal.
     I know I haven't given you much motivation to do this.  On the
other hand, if you don't, who will and how will things ever get any better?

Mike Shapiro
Dept. of  Communication
Cornell Univ.
MIK@CORNELLA