[ RadSafe ] Radiation Physics for Reporters

[Susan Gawarecki]

Stéphane Jean-François, Eng., CHP wrote:

>They should go back to THEIR OWN TRAINING and remember that they should
>report FACTS. That means that they need to check and cross-check their
>sources. But we all know that happy people have no history and good news
>don't sell.
>
I've had discussions with a number of reporters about how they handle 
scientific/technical controversies.  They don't try to report the 
facts--most of them don't have the training to distinguish what the 
facts are.  They report the controversy, and they look for quotes from 
people on both sides of it.  They are always interested in getting 
information from a subject-matter expert, so the best thing is to 
develop a working relationship with the reporters in your area and let 
them know you are available to be consulted (and quoted) in your field 
of expertise. 

If you are called, try to respond with pithy sound-bites or quotable 
quotes that have enough substance to support your point.  A lengthy 
technical explanation will never be published, and you run the risk of 
having a statement quoted out of context.  What is best is if you can 
respond to questions via e-mail - if you write well and can keep it 
brief and to an 8th grade readership level, you may get your entire 
quote published.  I've done a good bit of writing for my reporter 
friends this way!

Susan Gawarecki