Chapter 16

Wanna go steady?
Good relationships with the media are so important if you ever plan to utilize this channel of communication with your audience. However, building and maintaining these relationships seems difficult and certainly takes a certain amount of finesse. The authors point out that the media is typically reactive and event focused in its approach to the news. If that is the case most of the time, then how does a risk communicator establish relationships with the media in the first place? Do these relationships bias the media reporting? How? I can see benefits on both sides for the proper courting and maintenance of this marriage of risk communicators and the media. The media person has a point person for good information and the risk communicator has the advantage of potentially positioning their organization well in the coverage. However, unless the media person is your college roommate or new buddy, I argue that they’re only going to contact you or listen to you when there’s an event or crisis.

Prepping others in the organization for media coverage
One thing the authors did not cover was preparing others in your organization for communicating with or dealing with the media. Although the public information officer or spokesperson is typically charged with handling the media, sometimes reporters want a quote from someone else in the organization. Apart from telling the scientist, manager, or whoever exactly what to say, training them for what to expect is so important. I believe I remember Dr. Robinson mentioning last week that reporters may ask questions to get you off your key messages, but just the experience alone can be enough to get you off topic if you’re not prepared. A reporter probably knows he or she will not pull a fast one on you, but may be able to with an untrained person inside your organization. Prepping them for an interview or holding a training session on this would help keep everyone on the same page with the situation and prepare them for the savviest of reporters.

Problems with media coverage
Last semester we bashed the media a lot in a science and health communication class for the very reasons the authors bring up in this chapter: 1) watering down the information, 2) over-simplifying, and 3) over-sensationalizing. We also brought up other problems, such as lack of sources and choice of sources. Often times, with science and uncertainty, reporters present two sides in attempts to appear objective. However, there may be more than two sides, there may not even be “sides,” but the way the story comes out it looks like a juicy controversy. The authors suggest that risk communicators be accepting of these ways in which the media functions, but I disagree. I would like to see change in the media’s coverage of uncertainties, science, and health. I agree that, currently, we need to be aware of this way that the media works, but do we accept it, do we like it? I vote “nay.”