Let journalists do their jobs

Last year the science journalism community had a spirited discussion  about the practice of allowing sources (in this case, scientists) to "fact check" and approve quotes in news articles before publication.  One of the best tick-tocks I found was from Seth Mnookin.

The gist I got from the discussion was this: some scientists think their work is simply too complex for reporters to understand, so they should get the final review before an article is published. (I got a wry chuckle out of this Guardian editorial.) Some journalists pushed back a bit, saying journalism was an independent process and they, not the interview subject, are the more proper final arbiters of unbiased information.

I fall on the side of journalistic independence. I don't have a problem with a reporter returning to a source to confirm facts. The best reporters do that all the time. But the reporter (and editor) should have final say on what appears under their byline. And for those who think their scientific fields deserve some special status of "really hard" where they alone deserve this right to review, I'd like them to explain, say, the United States tax code in three paragraphs.

As a PR guy I'd love to review and sign off on all stories related to my clients before publication.  A lot of my clients are science-based companies. But I'm fairly certain people would raise a red flag about this for any number of reasons, and they'd be right to do so.   My job is to strengthen and protect a client's reputation, and I work hard to influence what people say about my clients.  A journalist has to make sure I'm not spinning something so she or he can report the facts.  But here's the thing: my presence or absence in this discussion doesn't change the journalist's job.  As distasteful as it may be to some, journalists also are vetting their sources for personal agendas, biases, or conflicts of interest.  Scientists are no better and no worse than any other group in this regard.

So I'm pleased the National Association of Science Writers took note of recent reports that political campaigns are reviewing and editing quotes from their spokespersons before article publication. They also note (via Poynter) that Associated Press has a different policy than the New York Times.

In politics, spin is basically baked into the process.  The good news is everyone knows it.  Look at the political coverage in any major "beltway" news publication.  You'll see candidates' quotes, and then you'll see analysis from dozens of others as to what those quotes "actually mean" based on their financial and political interests.   Political reporting is arguably the most transparent reporting there is - practically everyone mentioned in an article is identified with a party affiliation.  Even pollsters are labeled this way.  If someone fails to disclose a financial interest in a discussion, a reporter has a real scoop.  Right now, the presumptive GOP nominee for President is catching a lot of flack for not following the custom (not law) of releasing roughly a decade's worth of tax returns to the media.  This failure to voluntarily disclose - not the content of the returns themselves, but simply the unwillingness to share them - is having a measurable impact on the Governor's chances in the election.

The sad thing is, this condition lies at the core of America's lack of faith in its politicians.  We actually expect our politicians to lie to us and to cover things up.  We have groups like "Politifact" even analyzing the degree to which someone is lying - and then we have people who fact-check politifact. Beltway journalists often joke that a "gaffe" is when a politician tells you what he's really thinking.  Today, when politicians say something that's demonstrably false or otherwise ridiculous, they're more likely to "double down" than to back off.  Clarification is actually a sign of weakness. 


So it's quite convenient to have the luxury of sanitizing one's quotes before publication.  It eliminates that messy step of being held accountable for what you actually said. Without this accountability, more and more Americans wisely refuse to take a politician's published statements at face value.  And the faith Americans have in the political process continues to disintegrate. 


My fear is the reputation of science will follow a similar path if scientists try to exercise similar influence over the process of journalism.  If you encourage the media to hold you accountable, your credibility is only improved.  If you try to own the process, you look more like a spin doctor than a PhD. 


Even if the reporter gets it wrong, I say that's often a blessing in disguise. It gives you another chance to talk with the reporter and get your work publicized.  More importantly, if you handle the situation diplomatically and effectively, it gives you an opportunity to strengthen your relationship with the reporter, making it more likely that you'll be seen as a resource (and not a jerk).  

Truth.

So the good people at babble.com have a micro-controversy brewing.  It doesn't come anywhere close to being a crisis, but as the crisis PR guy who knows more than a few of the players involved, I think I have something to add.

First, by way of background: there's this dad blogger on babble (to protect the innocent, we'll call him "Godzilla") who does a great job promoting his blog/business, tends to push the envelope on marketing, and writes a few emotional feel-good pieces that he hopes provide inspiration to his readers.  These pieces get a lot of attention because a) they're well written and b) they're heavily promoted. 

Then there's this other dad blogger (let's call this guy "Megalon") who has had some not-so-great interactions with Godzilla and makes some reasonably credible assertions that at least one of Godzilla's feel-good pieces was a hoax.   Then Godzilla promotes this series he wrote about being rescued from a mountain, Megalon (and some others) think it's over-the-top, and a sliver of the parenting community breaks into full-blown navel-gazing  "what are we as a community" mode.  Godzilla tells this story about how he owned a mattress business or something, Megalon does the self-deprecating "don't drink and blog" thing, people take stuff way too personally, and hilarity ensues.

Liz Gumbinner, as usual, has a great perspective and kinda brings us back to earth a bit.  From my perspective, there are really two things to keep in mind as bloggers "go pro."

First, there's nothing wrong with promoting yourself and your work as creatively and aggressively as you want.  The market will decide when you've gone too far. The purpose of marketing isn't necessarily to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about a person or a topic.  The purpose of marketing is to influence you on a decision or action.   Sometimes the warm and fuzzy approach works.  Sometimes it's more effective to make people uncomfortable.  Sometimes it's even more effective to annoy people into doing something for you just so you'll go away.  In a 20-year career in politics and PR, I've been called a sell-out, a fraud, a communist AND a fascist, a racist, a hypocrite, a sycophant, and a sleazebag.  (And that's just from my friends.) "Professional" blogging is competitive, and the formulas and business models that actually make money compel you to be provocative and annoying - both in content development and promotion. 

Second, and more importantly, there's this: if something you write and promote isn't completely true, you should say so. It's not good enough to say "even if it's not completely true, that's OK if people get value from it. Even if it's "based on a true story." Even if it's a feel-good piece with a politically-correct social message.  If you state that your blog is your business, you are writing something designed to influence people in some way, and you have a financial interest in the impact of your content, you should be held to the same standards as any other business.   And if you're promoting your content in press releases, the default expectation is everything you're promoting is truthful.  Further, I see this responsibility as an individual one.  If I mess up, it reflects poorly on my employer, my partners, my colleagues. I'm responsible, not them.

Parables and fiction can teach wonderful lessons and have meaningful impact if they're well written.  But the more "true" a story is, the more force it carries.  There are so many examples of this it's impossible to count them all.  The most basic example I can think of is the Bible.  People who think the Bible is a literal record in which every word is completely true take the Bible much more seriously than those who think it's a collection of stories that highlight a good guy with some semblance of accuracy.  And those folks take the Bible more seriously than those who see no evidence that anything in the Bible ever really happened as written.

There are many more contemporary examples with a lot at stake.  Liz mentioned the tale of Amina Abdallah Araf al Omani. You can flip the argument by looking at the climate change "debate." There's a reason critics of climate science aren't putting up much of a fight in peer-reviewed academic journals but are investing heavily in popular consumer media.  The story's facts aren't changing.  But their impact changes dramatically if people don't believe the facts. 


I'd love to know other people's opinions on this. 

Accountability and Crisis PR at Penn State , Revisited

Seriously?

I'm stunned that so many people have missed this: the real story coming from Penn State is and continues to be one of the most profoundly inspiring examples of courage and fortitude we will see in America today. The events in Happy Valley over the past week only make this conclusion even more obvious.

A small group of young men - men who were once "disadvantaged" boys - stood up to say they were abused in ways many people won't even discuss.  They were tortured by a man who likely selected them for their perceived weakness - a man who no doubt instinctively understood the dynamics of power he was exerting over them. 

This man understood that these "weak" boys were not just facing an older, stronger man - they were facing a "culture of reverence." This predator instinctively knew he would be protected simply by his association with a popular football program.  And now we know he was right - as a member of that program, Penn State's leaders saw to it that he wouldn't face accountability for his actions. 

Some of these boys faced initial disbelief from their parents.  When one parent finally mustered the courage to complain in 1998, she faced this pedophile in her house, and got something tantamount to a confession while police listened in the other room.  She also had a report from a therapist suggesting the possibility of a pedophile in the football program.   Still, he wasn't prosecuted.  "Not enough evidence."  Leaders in this program worked quietly to protect the pedophile - not once expressing any interest for the welfare of the child. 

Still, some of the young boys continued to speak up, despite all of the incredible burdens working against them.  They faced the overwhelming trauma of the abuse itself, the disbelief, the stigma, the obtuse legal system, and the overwhelming pressure of disparaging the football program and its leaders - leaders who lied to the grand jury and everyone else.  There must have been incredible pressure to just shut up and "take it."  But someone in Happy Valley decided they wouldn't let this happen to another kid, no matter what it took.  That person is a hero.  So are the people who spoke up and challenged this pedophile in court.

The courage was contagious.  One victim speaking up became six, then eight, then ten, then twenty.  Now the list of those brave enough to step forward includes the predator's own son. 

Sadly, that courage must continue today.  That's because only one message from the Penn State community has come across clear as day since the scandal broke: "Don't even think about taking away our football."  Not a single game will be missed. 

Back in November, less than a second (yes, I timed it) after a statement was read announcing the termination of the University President and the football coach, two reporters shouted simultaneously, "who is coaching on Saturday?"  Students and alumni took to the streets.  They destroyed public property. They demonstrated in support of their coach, right outside his house. 

Just imagine the impact this scene must have had on the victims and their families.  These men shielded the pedophile that targeted them - and a community rushed to support the coach, not the victims.  These brave young men and their families watched their community literally riot the moment their coach saw an inkling of accountability for shielding the man that raped and abused those children.  (Of course, we now know that the coach made sure this "accountability" included a $3 million payout and a multitude of perks.)

The courage must continue because "don't even think about taking away our football" has inexplicably developed a very noisy corollary - "don't even think about taking down that statue of JoePa." To this day people there consider the statue a shrine and leave flowers there. (Don't worry, says the Board, it's staying. Of course, as the PR turns sour, the Board also issued an evasive statement saying "no vote has been taken.")


Again, imagine the impact this ridiculous distraction has on the victims and their families.  This guy knew he had a pedophile in his program, and, according to Penn State's own report, actively concealed information about it for 14 years and never considered the welfare of the victims.  And everyone seems more concerned with a statue of his likeness calling him a "humanitarian." 


The courage must continue because even though Penn State's own report heralds over 100 recommendations for improvement, dozens upon dozens of them are simply bureaucratic.  Shift "dotted line relationships" on org charts.  "Review" existing policies. Write job descriptions for new positions if you haven't already. (Yes, that's an actual recommendation.) Make a list of relevant programs you currently have. Comply with existing law.  No wonder the Board is quick to assert they're "already implementing many of the recommendations."  It's very hard to think real progress dismantling the "culture of reverence" can be made through dotted lines and job descriptions. 


The courage must continue because Penn State's culture isn't simply what you see at any other sports-crazy school.  This was the home of the "Grand Experiment."  The notion that their program was above reproach.  The idea that made them better than anyone else.  It's not like this at other schools.  


For example, I just look at some of the schools where my wife studied and worked.  There's just no way Penn State loves football more than Kentucky loves basketball.  People in Kentucky say national championships are their "birthright."  But say what you will, John Calipari really doesn't run the place.  Need an icon coach?  Mike Krzyzewski doesn't run Duke. (While my wife was never in Bloomington, Bobby Knight was the legend at Indiana and every bit as much an icon as Paterno - but he was escorted out.)  Need a football analogy?  The University of Georgia is as football-crazy as any school.  But Mark Richt doesn't presume to call the Board of Trustees and tell them what to do.  What's more, none of these coaches proclaim that their way is a "grand experiment."  


No, Penn State is a place where a former football coach with emeritus status can bring "underprivileged" kids on to campus to meet football players and attend football games, then rape boys in the showers that the football team uses, get seen by a football graduate assistant, who a day later reports it to the head football coach, who then waits to report it to the Athletic Director so as not to upset his weekend.  That former football coach with emeritus status can continue using the football facilities for several years with an office there, bring kids to meet football players and watch football games, take those kids to football games on the road and rape them.  And the most spirited, substantive defense that the head coach can make - in a letter published after his death - is that "this is not a football scandal." 


But it's all good, because the coach said "with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more" - and for many at Penn State, that alone constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card.  The Paterno family has its own set of lawyers and PR consultants, and they're no doubt very good.  I just hope they consider the impact their campaign has on those who have really been hurt. 

The courage must continue because in a couple of months, they're either going to play football in Happy Valley or they won't.  If they play football, these brave young men and their families will get to watch thousands parade around like they're on some kind of victory lap, chanting "WE ARE!" like they beat back outsiders who just don't understand the Penn State way.   Just like they did at the Nebraska game last year, only with more bravado this time.  If they don't play football, expect the local media to run stories about the businesses that will suffer for the 6 missed home games, the kids who don't get to play sports, and how everyone feels like they've been punished for someone else's crimes.  These young men and their families will have to fight the notion that they're somehow responsible for this.

I hope we will recognize the courage exemplified by these brave young men and their families.  The physical abuse is over, but we all know the mental and emotional impact endures.  We all know these young men will endure further indignities as many in the Penn State community continue to resist the "transformation" of its culture.  The courage must continue.  I certainly hope it does. 

They Are Penn State

From the Freeh Report press release (pdf):

Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest...

Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims.

Cowards.