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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT