Not long after leaving work as a newspaper reporter to do public and media relations for a state environmental agency, I came across a pamphlet written by Dr. Peter Sandman, a prominent risk assessment/risk communication consultant. In it, among other suggestions, he offered advice for responding to media inquiries, particularly involving controversial topics with complex and nuanced scientific and technical aspects.
I was more comfortable asking questions than answering them, and my college studies were heavier on history and politics than chemistry and biology. I welcomed any assistance for performing my new job duties.
Sandman counseled that if you wanted to be added to reporters' Rolodexes (this was obviously quite some time ago) as someone they would regularly call for comments on subjects in your field, you should become known for having a clear stance involving relevant issues and the expertise to intelligently articulate your position. He suggested imagining a linear scale numbered from zero to 10 for any particular topic, representing the range of opposing viewpoints.
Depending on which side of the debate you found yourself, the booklet suggested you should strive to be either a two or a three, or a seven or an eight--advocates of a particular point of view who were confident, but not strident, in their opinions. You shouldn't be a four, five, or six, because they're too wishy-washy; the ones who always say, "On one hand there's this, but on the other hand there's that ..." Journalists are seldom interested in quoting fence-straddlers.
However, Sandman also advised against being a zero or one, or a nine or 10, because reporters considered them too extreme. As an aside to readers, he remarked that anyone already thinking people quoted in news articles were too extreme should see some of the individuals showing up unannounced in newsrooms volunteering all kinds of opinions who never get quoted. (As an ex-reporter, I can absolutely vouch for that observation!)
The pamphlet was probably an accurate assessment of such matters when it was written in the mid-1970s. But the criteria for deciding who receives media exposure started to significantly change in the early 1990s--about the same time as the initial Persian Gulf War, the first major military conflict to be covered live around-the-clock.
Americans were hungry for the latest combat updates, but newspapers and traditional broadcast networks didn't have the space or other resources to report on the war 24/7, so the relatively new cable news channels eagerly jumped into that void. But with lots of air time to fill, a wide variety of interviewees soon wound up on camera.
Some, unfortunately, fit the profile of those newsroom walk-ins who used to be routinely ignored (except for the ones reported to the police ...).
An editorial cartoon in an "alternative media" publication at the time lampooned this "new journalism," to borrow a phrase popularized by noted author and social commentator Tom Wolfe in a much different context more than a decade earlier. The cartoon began with a cable talk-show host introducing his next guest. The topic that night was the explosion of information overwhelming average citizens, and their inability to keep up with developments and stay sufficiently informed on any given topic in order to have a proper discussion on shows like his.
"That's right!" the guest excitedly interrupted. "The title of my new book says it all." He held up a copy of the publication featuring a snarling close-up of himself on the cover with the words, "Learn Three Facts and Start Yelling!" in bold type.
"Three facts are all you need," he added. "Well, OK, four, if you want to be considered an intellectual."
It doesn't take much time observing certain "news" outlets nowadays in order to determine that, when it comes to getting interviewed, the advice of the editorial cartoon's fictional bombastic book author has easily triumphed over the real-life Ph.D. pamphleteer who counseled a considerably more restrained approach.
However, memorizing even a modest three or four facts in advance is no longer necessary to accompany any on-camera yelling. Indeed, for a significant number of commenters (and way too many media outlets) the absence of facts actually seems to draw a larger audience share than competitors at least trying to stick to the truth--with or without the yelling.
No wonder disinformation abounds, with no end in sight. Plus, now the ability of artificial intelligence to create seemingly realistic videos and audios of famous individuals spewing outrageous lies (joining the equally outrageous lies deliberately being promoted by real celebrities in undoctored clips already flooding the Internet) is only going to make matters worse.
And no one seems interested in putting that toxic cyber-toothpaste back into its tube. Not that it would matter much if anyone tried.
Doug Szenher of Little Rock retired from doing public/media relations with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality after previously working as a newspaper reporter in Hot Springs and Texarkana.