Getting the press we deserve: Opportunities and challenges for innovative media practice

Virginia Braun’s (2011) positive experience with the media is heartening. It shows that working with journalists can have tangible outcomes for research and activism. Here I draw on my own experiences to expand on the possibilities and limitations of working in the media.

We are probably all used to hearing how we should ‘engage’ with the media. Often this is seen in relatively passive ways, where we are trained to provide quotes for journalists or to deal with the press at conferences or research launches. Akin to the surgeons Braun observed, we might view individual journalists as more influential and perhaps more dangerous than they actually are. This overlooks how editors and publishers are far more powerful than staffers working on tight deadlines and strict briefs. For freelancers in particular, payment is usually based on delivery of what an editor wants. This puts pressure on journalists and academics/practitioners, where predetermined editorial angles have to ‘stack up’ and advertising revenue must be maintained. Our critical thinking or evidence is often sidelined for something which fits the brief, regardless of being stereotypical, ahistorical, atheoretical or harmful. An ‘us’ and ‘them’ scenario still often exists between media and academia, with journalists constructed as busy, unscrupulous and unreliable and academics as inaccessible and elitist. This can maintain false divisions and make people from either profession feel unable to collaborate.

For feminists there may be additional perceived problems with dealing with the media. Feminist colleagues have told me they have felt conflicted and hypocritical when working with publishers and broadcasters who they see as representing women in unhelpful, unrealistic or upsetting ways. Concerns over what colleagues might think about media work and worries over accusations of ‘selling out’ can be an additional barrier, as can the worry that being identified as feminist may lead to one’s work being excluded, pigeonholed, mocked or misrepresented. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to media working, nor a template for feminist media engagement that will appeal to all. Seeking out blogs, websites, columnists and writers you admire and observing how they conduct themselves is one way to forge a path through the media landscape. Some bloggers and activists are working together to support women who work in the media from a feminist perspective (e.g. www.skepchick.org), yet not all women identify with the same view of feminism and may also hold diverse views on what constitutes engagement. This can result in (social) media debates between feminist-identified people that might appeal to some yet feel intimidating to others.

Braun’s (2011) example shows how academics and journalists can work together in exciting and connected ways. Of course, we cannot overlook that dealing with the media may come with risks to our reputation and/or research, practice, clients or participants. Dealing with the media can also be time consuming, with often little or no discernible reward. The media is not noted for being a self-reflective profession and is often responsible for misrepresenting evidence – particularly around health, science, sex and sexuality. In the UK, the ongoing Leveson Enquiry http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk is testament to endemic problems in the media. We are right to be careful with engagement, but should recognize that there are plenty of ways to interact with the media and create our own content. Meeting journalists in ‘real life’, either fortuitously as in Braun’s case, or through deliberately making contact, can help us realize the working limitations many journalists face, forge creative relationships, or help journalists find different and better story angles. It can also lead to journalists informing us about news, forthcoming publications or potential topics for research. If your organization has a media office they are ideally placed to broker an introduction to journalists and support your partnerships. Using social media, particularly Twitter (Mollet et al., 2011), has become an increasingly common way of doing this. Many academics and certainly most practitioners often get ideas about policy and practice from media, rather than from peer reviewed publications (Goldacre, 2009). This may explain Braun’s experience of the surgeons’ reaction to the Cosmopolitan piece. It can also show that engaging with a mainstream outlet can sometimes have a bigger impact (in activism terms) than writing solely for an academic audience.

Turning away from the traditional ‘being available for a quote’ approach to media engagement, how then might we meaningfully be involved? Current examples include:

blogging (either writing your own blog or contributing to other people’s)

These still sit within standard models of ‘engagement’. More innovative programmes might include working with Science Museums and local/national science festivals to create public events in your specialist area. Or presenting your research in an applied way at music festivals as shown by the highly successful Wellcome Trust Funded Guerilla Science scheme (see http://guerillascience.co.uk). You could create your own podcasts (including audio or video), photo galleries of your work (using something like Flickr [http://www.flickr.com], Instagram [http://instagr.am] or Pinterest [http://pinterest.com]), or use social media to both mobilise for events or to unpack and question them (as happened recently with Slutwalks in the UK and US and ‘bra protests’ in Uganda).

Social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, can be used to share your research but more interestingly can be used to challenge and confront. For example, in 2010 actor Danny Dyer wrote in his advice column in Zoo magazine that a reader should cut his ex-girlfriend’s face ‘so no one will want her’. People mobilized on Twitter to first highlight the advice column’s content and then to publicly challenge the magazine’s editor – including sharing details of his work email. Next, magazine advertisers were identified and shared on Twitter with the encouragement to pressurize them to withdraw sponsorship for Zoo. Twitter was also used to make public any responses from these companies. This resulted in the sacking of Dyer, a public apology from the magazine and a feature in the magazine about domestic violence. Social media are also currently being used: to campaign for open access to academic resources; for sharing materials with those who work in resource poor communities or who lack access to academic materials; for enabling professionals, practitioners and activists to network; and for establishing online journal clubs for developing skills in critical reflection. And feminist blogger collectives like Skepchick (http://skepchick.org) work to make research more accessible and to expose inequalities within science.

Working across diverse media sources we have seen success stories, in the form of Trans Media Watch (http://www.transmediawatch.org) who have been working to improve the media’s portrayal of Trans issues. Ben Goldacre’s popular Bad Science column and book (2009) has enabled bloggers, enthusiasts and activists to tackle poor practice, unethical research, medicalization and false claims for herbal and other products. And sites like Sense About Science (http://www.senseaboutscience.org) and the Science Media Centre (http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages) invite us to share more accurate information on our physical and psychological health. Within such sites are opportunities to be critical friends of our critical friends – for example, in challenging the ahistorical and judgmental ‘old wives’ medicine’ campaign run by Sense About Science in 2010, or their targeting of bad celebrity advice (Bell, 2012).

Whether we are working with old or new media, we need to focus on support systems. Currently institutions are better equipped at pushing us into the media spotlight than caring for us once we are there – particularly if things go wrong. The problems of sexist/sexual abuse aimed at women using social media or appearing in the media, alongside threats of violence or slurs against one’s profession, have been well documented recently (e.g. Lewis, 2011), but with no coherent plan to tackle the problem. Indeed some feminist bloggers and journalists argue the level of sexualized and gendered abuse appears to worsen as the trend in cheaper media fuelled by comment pieces continues (Lewis, 2011). The mobilizing power social media creates also enables mobbing, bullying and harassment. Feminists have definitely been on the receiving end of such social media battles, but have also instigated attacks on opponents – for example with those defending the call for the RadFem 2012 Conference to be limited to ‘women born women’. Media training and support needs to expand beyond coaching us in providing carefully worded quotes to think about issues of personal safety and wellbeing that safeguard us as academics/practitioners and those we work with – clients, colleagues, students and/or research participants. It also needs to focus on ethical and respectful conduct across social media, which currently is a thorny issue for those working in research, healthcare and therapy. Furthermore, it needs to challenge abuse that may arise from discussing research and practice in politicized ways. The voices of the marginalized are still not adequately heard or spoken for within academic research and wider media. Sharing examples of good practice and enabling opportunities to act as media allies is important. Not least to sidelined groups such as sex workers, Trans women, teen mothers, people living/working in crisis/conflict zones, plus practitioners and the public in the Global South.

Mainstream old media and some (but not all) ‘new’ media is a commercial venture. It will run whatever seems topical and, more importantly, what will generate readers/viewers, shift copy, and sell advertising. Yet while safe, heteronormative, commercialized and aspirational messages are standard, it does not mean these cannot be subverted. We may find we achieve more success in doing this by making a personal contact (as Braun found), by having something interesting to share or, most importantly, by showing how this will benefit the media. Indicating to old media that our ideas are part of a wider debate on the blogosphere or social media can be another way to achieve this.

We can and should be critical friends of the media. We can pick and choose the media we engage with. We can share resources and experience. And we can also highlight when the media get it wrong. Contrary to what a lot of media training events suggest, we can gain respect by showing up where the media are wrong – and highlight how the media operates, or name and shame bad journalism or practitioners who give unhelpful or harmful advice. We can also celebrate when we see good practice. Often in the rush to expose ‘bad journalism’ we forget groundbreaking work that is done within the media. We don’t all have to aim to be a ‘media psychologist’. Indeed, some occupying such roles have been rightly criticized for misrepresenting psychology or breaching professional ethics (McCartney, 2012). However, the range of opportunities in working with or alongside (or even against) the media can reassure us we can all play a role.