CYBERBEATby Craig Hicks “Congratulations…you’ve got big shoes to fill” read an e-mail message I received soon after taking on the job of NASW cybrarian. Although Bob Finn indeed is a hard act to follow, his advice and encouragement—as well as A’ndrea Elyse Messer’s continued support as backup cybrarian—have given me a solid start. Serving as cybrarian is a great way for me to “give back” to a community of colleagues and friends and to while keeping my hand in at doing something I love: helping people use the Internet to communicate and build virtual communities. I’ve been actively involved in online communities from the early 1980s—first as a participant in various BBS message boards and as a chat-room host for Q-Link (the dial-up precursor to America Online, for Commodore 64 computers), and more recently as manager of electronic outreach for the National Academy of Sciences. The growth and change our association is undergoing undoubtedly will be reflected in how we use the Web, and I’m delighted to be taking part in this transformation. Working with NASW’s Internet committee, I’ll be on the prowl for Web-related ways to support the association’s strategic goals while continuing to build a vibrant virtual community of science writers. I look forward to hearing your ideas. And now, in the time-honored tradition of Bob Finn, here are some recent highlights from some of NASW’s e-mail discussion lists. nasw-pr/nasw-talk Science Writer Mari Jensen, of the University of Arizona, sparked a conversation on two of NASW’s discussion lists about how the media use news releases, after questioning how a reporter attributed a quote to her in a story (May 17, 2004). “Thing is, the reporter never talked to me,” she wrote. “He took explanatory information I’d written in a press release, put quotation marks around the words, and then attributed it to me as a quote.” This didn’t seem quite kosher, she added, asking others for their thoughts on the situation. “I’ve had reporters do this to me, too,” replied Arizona State University’s James Hathaway. “[One reporter] said to me that I wrote it so it was fair game.” Other university science writers affirmed that this phenomenon isn’t limited to the Grand Canyon State, nor is it unusual. For John Weiner, of the University of Southern California, it’s a matter of routine. “Boy, I’ll tell you it happens all the time,” he observed. “I’m constantly ‘quoted’ even though my name only appears at the top of our release. On the other hand, I guess we can’t complain too much since they’re at least running the story!” Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Jennifer Donovan also sees the practice as a mixed bag: “It isn’t good journalism, but it did get the name of your institution in the paper, so unless it was factually inaccurate, I would just bite my tongue (and perhaps look for a different reporter or editor to send your news releases to after this).” This topic took a turn when Hathaway and others brought up the role of university science writers and public information officers when communicating with reporters. “What strikes me about this is that the reporter appears to be quoting you as a technical authority, which, I assume, is inaccurate,” he wrote. “Many things go on at the university, but spokespeople are hardly valid sources for technical comment.” Earle Holland, of Ohio State University, offered a slightly different perspective. “Given the level of expertise that the majority of the media looks for in seeking ‘expert’ comment, I think we qualify,” he noted. “Certainly we are sharing our expertise when a reporter calls seeking clarification about the content of one of our stories—we end up explaining the science further with the hope the reporter—at that point at least somewhat better informed—will then seek out our true experts.” “Why would you want to quote somebody from the university communications office instead of the scientist who actually did the research?” asked Georgia Tech’s John Toon. “The researchers are the authoritative sources, and if they’ve allowed releases to be written about their work, should be more than willing to be interviewed.” Penn State’s A’ndrea Elyse Messer pointed out that she isn’t really a spokesperson for the university when she writes news releases; her role in such cases is to help faculty communicate about their research. “ I do sometimes explain science to general reporters so they can ask questions, but that is always not for attribution, and I’ve never had a problem, even with our student newspaper, on that,” she wrote. “This is new information and new perspective for some of us whose experience is mostly in the media and companies that supply information to the media,” wrote freelance Alan Wachter, in a message echoed by others from outside the academic research realm. Alaska-based freelance Sonya Senkowsky agreed that there is very little distinction between being the writer of a news release and an official spokesperson. “You are arguably a spokesperson whenever you’re speaking for your employer, in person or in print,” she explained. “As my former newspaper bosses might have put it, it may not be exactly right, but it doesn’t rise to the level of a correction.” Building on ideas from a number of participants in this discussion—including Geni Wren, of Vance Publications, and freelance Bill Thomasson—Hathaway posted a questionnaire on May 21, 2004 to gather information for a NASW workshop session he and Jensen are planning about public information and media relations practices at research institutions. “Perhaps it needs to be a panel that partly explains to our freelancer and reporter brethren what our jobs actually are versus what they may be presumed to be,” suggested Holland. To read the full text of this discussion—including the workshop questionnaire—see the nasw-talk and nasw-pr sections of the “Mailing List Archives” area on the NASW.org Web site. # Freelance writer and editor Craig Hicks manages NASW’s Web site and e-mail discussion groups. He welcomes your comments about the association’s Internet services at cybrarian@nasw.org. |