The internet is our domain. In any other
medium, we are in foreign territory, at the mercy of
journalists and editors. To evaluate whether we should
cooperate with the media, we need to assess the impact
a conventional media article might have, and whether our
participation would change it for the worse, or the better.
What possible impact can a
conventional media article have? It might have negative impacts in
the form of trolls or attempts to close ash-related resources.
It might have positive impacts: people who share our views and were
unaware of our existance can seek us out and find us. The opportunity
we might be missing is that of increasing the positive impacts
and decreasing the negative ones.
The past negative coverage of the pro-choice point of view has
caused many ashers to reject cooperation with the media.
However, asher's dispair of the press may be due to unrealistic
expectations, and from overlooking the possibility that we are
not well prepared for dealing with the media.
Perhaps we need to
do some homework before we can successfully handle interviews.
It may be that even after doing our homework and applying it,
we will not succeed,
and will conclude that cooperation is useless, however, since
we have not done this yet, we might be jumping to
conclusions by rejecting cooperation too soon.
These pages intend to find out what homework we should be doing,
and start doing it.
The following are some observations from past interactions
with the media, including interpretations of ashers,
alternative interpretations, and suggestions of homework
we should be doing.
Ashers note the many factual errors as a reason
not to cooperate with the media. The errors in simple factual
matters would imply that journalists would not be able
to be accurate on more complex and substantial issues.
Factual errors are indeed
unprofessional, but factual accuracy on technical details will not
usually have much impact, either positive or negative. What is important
that the journalists get things right on what matters, and there is
a better chance for this if ashers are there to respond.
Consider that many of the factual errors are with
regards to exact definitions of the forums we participate in,
or the definition of the interviewee's role in the ash
community. These issues are indeed complex for a person
who does not frequent such forums. Ashers are surprised each
time such errors are found. What is really surprising is that
ashers are
still surprised.
We are obviously expecting too much from reporters.
Considering we know such
errors appear often, if you care about factual accuracy you can prevent such factual errors
by providing
a short explanation about the forums you are involved in, and
your role in those forums. Provide this information without
being asked, before the interview starts. Take responsibility.
Much of the past record of the media marginalizes our point of view.
However, this may be just because of the way we have chosen to
interact with the media so far. We have not done our homework.
Indeed the journalists are biased against us, and frequently
write their story, saving the part of the villain for us,
in advance. However, we do not have to fit into the mold
they have prepared for us.
The journalists write the questions according to
the way they understand the story.
If all we do is answer the questions which were asked, we are
falling into the preconcieved notions of the journalist.
Instead, we should set an agenda of our own, determining
what we want to achieve by the interview. According to this
we can tailor
KeyMessages. Therefore, our job in the interview
is not to answer the questions, but to communicate our key
messages, according to our agenda. This can possibly
get us out of the mold.
It may be that even while praising us or stating positive personal
experiences with the group that inadvertently, the ashers
interviewed in the past conveyed their
messages in a defensive manner. Consider that persons with depression, bp disorder, shizophrenia, et al.... and/or
suicidal ideation, are of low self esteem and feel guilty and often
apologize for such things as be honest about
their problems on ash forums. This may be reflected in
the interview.
In addition, the stigma of suicide, mental illness and the loneliness evoke an air
of necessary "secrecy" by individuals regarding their participation in ASH. Again, this stigma is something
that persons in ASH culture feel they must defend themselves against as if
someone had found out some "dirty little secret" about them.
We cannot count on journalists to do research to the degree
we expect. Typically, a journalist is writing several
different articles under various deadlines. There are limits
to which they are able to do research, read books, read
websites, or scan through posts of a newsgroup or web
forum. The interview is the most useful tool of the journalist
since that way they are able to tap into expert opinion without
the need to invest much time researching themselves. Since
we are the experts, we should be providing them the relevant
information which supports our point of view, in a way that
the journalist will find immediately useable.
This is why we cannot rely on journalists to read what we
want them to read. If we want to refer them to another
article, web site or book, that is OK, as it lends us
credability. However, we cannot expect the journalists to
actually read what we are referring to in depth. Therefore,
a short summary should be supplied as well.
Ashers are surprised again and again of the lack
of research and "professionalism" of journalists. But
there is no reason to be surprised. This is how the
media works, and we should work with it rather than
against it. Pointing fingers at the journalists will lead
us nowhere. We cannot make the journalists do better research,
but we can take responsibility and prepare the research ourselves.
Just the fact that our view is presented at all is in itself
a small victory. Interviews with us acknowledge that we have reasoning.
They acknowledge us as a side to the discussion, and that
alone lends some legitimacy.
Arguably, the actual impact of any article is likely to be
negligable, so there is a question: whether giving an interview is
worth the effort involved in prepartion for it. On the other
hand, if such articles are indeed of little significance,
some ashers may feel a greater desire to be interviewed since
they cannot cause much damage, so there is less responsibility.
Since we are not organized it would be impossible for us
to ban ashers from interviewing. Furthermore, there are numerous
forums which are similar in spirit to ASH. In these forums we have
even less influence. In addition, trolls and do-gooders may be eager
to tell their point of view which would not be favorable, while pretending
to represent ASH.
Therefore, the question is not so much whether ashers will be interviewed,
but rather, what kind of messages do the interviewees manage to
communicate and what is the resulting impact.
By interviewing we perhaps have a small chance to impact the article.
We can set goals and devise ways to communicate them to the
audience that interests us.
Willing to cooperate with the media does not mean you should
cooperate in every opportunity.
Some interviews might not be worth doing at all.
For example, radio shows or talks shows which make
fun of the participants, or feature bizarre interviewees.
Decline if you think an interview might
lead to such kinds of situations.
Even if you believe that cooperating with the media might be
beneficial in principle, personal issues come into play
and might prevent people from participating.
Stage fright is a serious problem. People are afraid
of looking stupid, evil, or guilty. They are afraid of their
own inabilities : lack of knowledge, lack of communication
skills, slow responses, etc.
However, most reporters are not against you, rather they are trying
to write the story, and they need your input. Reporters can
be regarded as friends, instead of enemys.
If you interact with the media, you are likely to make some
mistakes, but that is OK. Its the only way to learn how to do it
right.
-- EverDawn, SR
