ILNews

Lucas: Ever wonder ‘What do reporters really want?’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigI receive a lot of legal news emails. I’m sure many Indiana Lawyer readers can relate. (At minimum you receive the IL daily, correct?)

So, one day, while moving rather rapidly through the emails that had accumulated in my inbox, I came across a headline in “Above the Law” that read: “5 Things Reporters Don’t Want to Hear From You.” I had to read it. The feeling was similar to the one I have when I come across an article by a man explaining what women really want.

I must admit that the authors – Margie Zable Fisher, a public relations firm owner from Florida, and Barbara Rozgonyi, a media consultant from Chicago – made some solid points. It is understandable that lawyers and other business people are sometimes hesitant to answer calls from reporters, and these women explain how to efficiently and effectively make doing so a positive experience for both parties.

The authors detailed five things reporters don’t want and five things they do. Based on my professional experience, I’d edit a few of their suggestions, but every reporter and every experience is unique. Some are common sense, but I considered them worth sharing.

They started with what reporters don’t want to hear.

No. 1: Self-promotion. That is accurate. The reporter would not likely be contacting you if he didn’t consider you credible, and on this day he is seeking your insights and expertise on a particular topic.

No. 2: Apathy or neutral positioning. If you’re not going to “take a stand” while talking with a reporter, the authors say, you may as well not talk with them at all. Their point is that the more opinionated you are, the more likely you are to get quoted. I agree that the better the quote, the more likely it will be used; I disagree with the notion that you shouldn’t have the conversation if you don’t have a firm position. Sometimes, the background information or historical perspective a source can provide is incredibly valuable. Legal issues can be intricate, as lawyers are well aware, and the translation from legalese to layman’s terms that a good lawyer can provide is appreciated by a reporter.

No. 3: Verbose replies. Space is limited. The authors recommend avoiding lengthy answers that have to be edited to a couple of sentences. I’d add: If a long answer is required to feel you’ve adequately addressed a question, the lawyer who can synopsize her thoughts at the conclusion of her answer is much likelier to be quoted.

No. 4: “No comment.” Think long and hard, the authors say, before saying these words. IL reporters understand that legal issues sometimes prevent a lawyer from commenting, but a returned call or email indicating that is the case is always appreciated. Lawyers are cognizant of the value of relationship building, and a response to a reporter will go a long way, even if it is not what he wants to hear, in preserving that relationship for the next time that you may indeed want to talk.

No. 5: “Can I read your article before it’s printed?” Smaller staffs and tighter deadlines prevent media outlets from being able to do this, the authors explain. They are spot on. Today’s deadlines are often minutes, hours if we are lucky, after the reporting on a story is completed. Imagine circulating a legal document you’d spent a week creating to the parties involved and asking for a response from all involved within the hour.

Fisher and Rozgonyi also addressed what reporters do want.

No. 1: Short sound bites. Much of what was said in No. 3 above applies here. The authors recommend that if you know you are going to be talking to a reporter, “make a short list of sound bites – just a sentence or two that sums up the story” in advance. Not a bad idea. Just remember not to come off as too rehearsed. You are being contacted because of your credibility on the topic at hand.

No. 2: Numbers and statistics. Absolutely. Providing data or directing the reporters to a reputable source for data you’ve used in your practice that may support the story is extremely helpful.

No. 3: “Do you need any other sources?” The authors point out that this shows you are willing to help the reporter, not just yourself, which builds credibility. Reporting can be a scavenger hunt, and putting a reporter in touch with another valuable source can significantly save time.

No. 4: “Here’s my cell phone number; call me anytime.” Reporting is deadline driven, pure and simple. If you have a good relationship with a reporter and are comfortable giving her your cell phone number, the likelihood that you’ll be contacted for a quote or interview increases.

No. 5: Thank you. The authors suggest that an individual who is interviewed always follow-up with a thank-you email letting the reporter know that the interview opportunity was appreciated. In it, they say, recap your comments and request, if possible, that links to your site be included. Here’s the thing. We know that lawyers have demanding schedules and we appreciate the time you’ve already taken to talk with us. While a follow-up email is a nice gesture, it is not necessary. Feel confident that an IL reporter will contact you if he or she needs clarification of anything you have said in an interview.

I always appreciate it when a lawyer gives me tips that help navigate covering the law, and I hope that the insights shared here will help you next time you have the opportunity to be interviewed.

If you’d like to read Fisher and Rozgonyi’s complete article, it can be found at www.nfib.com/business-resources/business-resources-item?cmsid=62415.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT