Center for Health Communication
Problems for sources
“Engaging with the Press: A Guide for Perplexed Readers and Sources” was written by Dick Tofel for the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Health Communication. It was inspired and informed by Dick’s Center for Health Communication class “Engaging with the Press: A Practical Look at Health Communication.”
I hope that the foregoing has better prepared you to engage with reporters and their editors. Before concluding, I want to focus your attention, for just a bit longer, on a few special problems that can arise as you do this, and, to varying degrees, have been discussed in other contexts above. Each is worth bearing constantly in mind.
Competing agendas with reporters
Throughout this booklet, I have urged you to try to better understand what a reporter with whom you may find yourself interacting is trying to accomplish. What sort of work does that person do? How are they approaching this story? How much time do they have? What do they already know? What do they think? Is there something in particular they want you to say? If you are fortunate enough to glean the answers to these questions, bear in mind that some of them may be things you can do something about, while others are not.
To start, you are unlikely to be able to influence how much time a reporter has available to work on the story, or what their deadline is. On the latter point, if you are being asked to assemble information that cannot reasonably be gathered in that time frame, by all means say so. But deadlines are often truly deadlines, and frequently beyond the power of the reporter to change. Don’t hesitate to ask for more time if you need it, but be prepared to accept a rejection if you get one. And if a reporter on a call is in a hurry, respect that and try, if you can, to respond quickly and briefly.
Don’t hesitate to ask for more time if you need it, but be prepared to accept a rejection if you get one.
If a reporter is misinformed about the facts, you should certainly tell them. If they are focusing on what you regard as the wrong facts, make them aware of others you consider more relevant. If you are asked your opinion on a matter that is subject to debate, feel free to offer it if that is appropriate to your role. But arguing with a reporter about a matter of opinion is very unlikely to be effective.
By the same token, stand your ground if you are confident in it. Don’t equivocate on facts unless you have your own doubts about them. As noted earlier, don’t distort your own views to match those a reporter may want to include in their story; in such a case, let them find another source.
Competing agendas with colleagues
Too much thinking about the interaction between the press and the people and institutions it covers assumes that an organization in the news is a monolith. That, of course, is far from the case, for several reasons. When Donald Rumsfeld was White House Chief of Staff he formulated a pithy list of “rules,” one of which was “Never say ‘the White House wants;’ buildings don’t ‘want.’” Precisely right.
In dealing with the press, and in reading what it produces, it’s essential to bear in mind that your objectives may differ not only from those differently situated from you, but also from those who may appear to be similarly placed. It is not uncommon, in fact, for people in large organizations, and especially in public life, to effectively send each other messages through the press.
Readers do well to frequently ask themselves the classic question “who benefits?” as they consume reporting. As a source, when confronting what other information a reporter may already have, the same question applies.
Readers do well to frequently ask themselves the classic question “who benefits?” as they consume reporting.
Reporting on criminal justice matters provides a particularly fertile field in this respect. It is, for instance, a serious crime for a prosecutor to reveal what is occurring before a grand jury. But no such limitation applies to grand jury witnesses. Some prosecutors, or their associates, may talk to reporters anyway, but in my experience the vast majority of reporting coming from grand jury inquiries can be traced back, when known at all, to witnesses and defense counsel who have talked with the witnesses. The motivations for these sources range from seeking advantage relative to other possible defendants to trying to shape possible jury pools and community reaction to information exchange with beat reporters to the titillation of sharing secrets.
In less legally fraught situations, and even in more sensitive areas such as foreign and defense policy, analogous considerations often apply. There are, to be sure, occasions when talented reporters convince sources to share information when it is not in their interest to do so, but these are exceptional moments—and fairly rare reporters. As both a reader and a source you will be safest in assuming that what reporters are learning, they are learning from people acting in their own self-interest, at least as they see it.
Reliability
The vast majority of reporters, in my experience, do their best to achieve accuracy in their reporting, and take any agreements they make with sources very seriously and comply with them scrupulously. But not all do so.
One consideration in any interview should be whether you expect what you say to be reported both correctly and in the proper context. If you don’t, the encounter is likely just not worth the risk. This is the best reason to ignore requests from fringe news organizations—reaching their audiences can be useful, but running the risk that your words will be mangled may outweigh that.
A more significant issue will more often arise with ground rules you may seek for an interview which you are considering. These can include embargoes delaying the publication of material until some agreed moment, or placing comments on background or off the record or an understanding of how you will be described as a source.
One consideration in any interview should be whether you expect what you say to be reported both correctly and in the proper context.
The courts have ruled that such a conversation is contractual— reporters are legally bound by promises they make. But enforcing these contracts is very difficult as a practical matter, so the exchange comes down largely to a matter of trust. If prior contact, or the experience of friends or colleagues, or the personal or institutional reputation of the reporter or news organization gives you confidence, by all means, rely on such agreements. Absent any such indicia, however, proceed with the caution you would in any other dealing with a stranger.
Afterlife of stories
Finally, yesterday’s news, as the cliches go, was once used mostly to line birdcages or wrap fish. If it was broadcast, it just vanished into thin air. Today it lingers on the internet, made accessible by Google and soon even more readily by generative AI. What does this mean for those engaging with the press?
I hope it strengthens your resolve to be honest, not only in telling the truth as you know and see it, but also in expressing your uncertainty when you feel it. There should be little more embarrassing for a supposed expert than revisiting a public proclamation that turns out to have been mistaken when they knew at the time that what they were stating as fact or likelihood was actually uncertain. This was almost certainly the greatest communications mistake made—repeatedly—by public health officials in the first two years of the pandemic.
The durability in the digital age of what was once “news” should also encourage modesty in tone and temperance in emotion and expression.
The durability in the digital age of what was once “news” should also encourage modesty in tone and temperance in emotion and expression. That doesn’t mean you should hesitate to vindicate your values or forthrightly call out injustice or falsehood. But it does mean that recognizing, if you can, the emotions of a fraught moment will serve you well as your words age.