Media Training for Scientists Pt 4: What To Do With Your Quotes
The result of nearly every press interview (unless it’s a live TV interview) is a distillation of quotes from an expert. Journalists will then use these quotes in articles or play them in news clips or radio segments as part of a story. Ensuring you’re not misquoted can be a significant concern for a scientist or researcher. Today’s article will discuss handling your quotes and what to do if you’re misquoted.
Post-Interview Quoting Processes
While it’s easy to think that the end of a press interview is just that…the end, there’s actually a lot that happens post-interview. Many journalists, myself included, have to pick out then which quotes we want to use for our story and begin drafting the article or creating the audio segment. Depending on the deadline for the story, this can be in the span of a week or less than 24 hours.
As the expert interviewee, you may have time to review which quotes are used in the story. Not every journalist will allow you to review your quotes (especially if they have a tight deadline), but the ones who do can show you how you will come across in the interview. You can see how you might sound, and depending on if the journalist lets you amend or rewrite your quotes (again, this depends on the journalist and the deadline), you can tweak your voice to come across how you’d like in the interview.
I should highlight that it’s a no-no in journalism to send a full rough draft article to a story’s source. Not only does this get rid of any privacy for other sources being quoted in the article, but it also can cause the scientist or researcher to try to edit the journalist’s writing directly.
Rule #6: Don’t Expect to See the Full Article Until It’s Published
Because of the policy above, you should expect only to see your quotes in the story’s context after the article is published. Again, you may be able to tweak how your quotes are written/sound depending on the journalist you’re working with, but you will most likely not see where or how your quotes are being used.
Now, there are some exceptions to this policy. For example, as a PIO, I often work closely with JILA’s scientists to write articles based on a recent or upcoming paper they’re working on. In this case, I will show them the entire article, as it allows them to see how I plan to use their quotes, and from there, they can correct or change anything depending on my story. I can also add comments asking for the accuracy of some of my writing, ensuring everything is as accurate as it can be. Because I work for a scientific institution, I can forgo the previous policy as allowing the scientist to read the entire draft helps them and their team look successful and the institution as a whole.
What if You Can’t Edit Your Quotes?
Not being able to edit or change your quotes is the norm for most sources, so don’t sweat it. The nice thing is (from my experience) a lot of magazines and other publications can amend or change things after an article is published. So once you see the full story and your quotes in context, you could ask the journalist if the magazine could change your wording.
Not all publications will do this, but depending on what was said or needs to be changed, many are flexible to do this. However, this doesn’t mean they’ll be happy to do so, as it can be frustrating for the editors and administration to change things. So utilize this option sparingly!
Rule #7: Don’t Give One Sentence Quotes
I can’t tell you how many experts I’ve interviewed, particularly over email, who have given me only one sentence in response to a question. It’s absolutely infuriating because that’s all I have to use in my story. I understand scientists are busy, but please, take the time to give more than one-sentence quotes.
What happens when you only give a one-sentence quote is that the journalist is forced to use that one sentence in their story, which limits the context of the quote and can portray the expert in a different light than what they may have been expecting. Additionally, having a series of one-sentence quotes can encourage the journalist to forgo quoting the expert entirely, especially if they’re strapped for time or word count. I’ve had scientists in the past that I’ve sent a story (after interviewing them), and they got upset because they weren’t quoted, and I’ve had to explain that their quotes weren’t easily useable and were instead used for background information.
No one wins in this scenario. Good journalists strive to represent their sources as fairly and objectively as possible but are limited by how much their sources share. If you want to ensure you are quoted in a story or that you’re represented in the best light possible, take the time to share multi-sentence, useable quotes with a journalist. Don’t just dash off an email because you’re busy. It may not work out as you’d hoped.
I won’t go over jargon-filled quotes, as we discussed in the first part of this article series, but all that to say is that jargon-filled quotes are almost as unusable as one-sentence quotes.
For example, I received a quote from a source that looked like this: “These have been widely utilized in various applications such as piezoelectric actuators, ferroelectric memories, high permittivity dielectrics in field effect transistors and in superconducting cables to name a few.”
If I wanted to use this quote, I would now have to google all of the different application terms within the quote and then define them all in the article, which would take up precious word count and space, and in the end, few readers would actually care what this may mean. Clearly, this quote didn’t make the final article.
So review part 1 of this article series and remind yourself to make your quotes as accessible as possible for your next interview.
What Happens if I’m Not Quoted?
Not every expert makes the cut of being quoted; it’s, unfortunately, just part of writing. Most news stories have short word counts, meaning quotes can easily occupy much of this space. To save on word count, journalists may paraphrase a source (without directly quoting them) or not mention them at all, instead using their quotes for background research for the story.
If you’re not quoted, it’s not as big of a deal as you think. Yes, it would be nice to have your name mentioned as an expert in a New Scientist or Scientific American article that you can share with family and colleagues, but you can still share these stories and mention that you were influential in the background of the story. Even if you’re not quoted, you still played an important role in the story and can keep the story for your records.
If you are quoted, congrats! You can keep the press clipping and use it for grant applications or future projects (which many scientists do) or share it within your circles. I’ve also heard stories of scientists creating successful research collaborations because they connected with the other experts quoted in a story researching similar topics. You can also share with your institute or company, and they can repost/tag or share for marketing and PR purposes as well.
Rule #8: Check in with the Journalist Post-interview
The last thing I’ll say is to check in with the journalist after the story and ask if they have a timeline for publication. This can help you know when to look for and share the article. Oftentimes the journalist may tell you upfront. Journalists are quite busy, so they may forget to tell you or share the story with you after publication.
I always make it a habit to share stories after they’re live with my sources, so I can thank them once again for helping with the article and remind them to stay in touch if they have any new developments or ideas. It’s important for scientists to reciprocate this process of checking in, as they can maintain relationships with the journalist and let them know about any new potential news stories.
This brings the conclusion to our article series, as the process begins again for scientists and journalists with part 1 of this series, finding and maintaining those press relationships. While the tips and tricks I’ve mentioned in the previous month aren’t the only methods to ensure successful media training, they hopefully can give you a basic toolkit for productive press interviews.
