[00:01.620 --> 00:04.960]  Yes, I'm number 128 or two to the seven to my friends.
[00:05.700 --> 00:08.860]  In Civilian Life, I am Steven Cass.
[00:08.940 --> 00:14.620]  I'm a Senior Associate Editor with IEEE Spectrum Magazine, which is published by the IEEE.
[00:14.740 --> 00:22.460]  The IEEE is kind of a large organization that does a whole lot of different kinds of very technical publishing, but we're a more sort of general interest to magazine.
[00:22.640 --> 00:26.320]  And you might even find this on some bookstores.
[00:26.640 --> 00:30.680]  So we're not like a trade, we're not like a journal, we are actually mainstream.
[00:32.880 --> 00:35.500]  One thing I should say at the top is...
[00:35.500 --> 00:36.640]  Oh, my show wasn't working.
[00:38.180 --> 00:39.100]  Let me try that.
[00:43.680 --> 00:45.620]  I think it forgot how to do it.
[00:45.800 --> 00:46.020]  Okay.
[00:47.160 --> 00:51.840]  The first thing is, I'm here to talk about the mainstream media, but I am not the mainstream media.
[00:51.980 --> 00:57.120]  I know many of you have problems with the mainstream media and problems with particular individuals.
[00:57.120 --> 00:58.540]  I am not those individuals.
[00:58.700 --> 01:03.420]  So if you have great anger at the media, there's really not a huge amount of point I'd give.
[01:03.440 --> 01:08.880]  taking it out on me as I'm not really in a position to change the entire structure of the industry.
[01:11.160 --> 01:13.580]  So again, Spectrum is published by the IEEE.
[01:13.600 --> 01:15.840]  We focus generally on emerging technology.
[01:15.840 --> 01:25.680]  We cover everything from, gosh, military, aerospace, biomedical, software development, energy, semiconductors, just the entire waterfront.
[01:25.680 --> 01:28.460]  We have about 370,000 subscribers worldwide.
[01:29.040 --> 01:36.780]  I personally cover some of their computers and do a lot of their space coverage and a lot of kind of the service journalism aspects.
[01:38.420 --> 01:40.920]  So the first question is, why bother with the mainstream media?
[01:41.020 --> 01:53.420]  You have a situation now where hackers have an unprecedented ability to get their message out, because you have the Internet, which is a distribution channel that can reach directly into any person's home, assuming they've got a connection.
[01:53.680 --> 01:56.500]  You've got blogs, you've got video blogs, you've got podcasts.
[01:56.820 --> 01:59.860]  So why even bother dealing with all the hassle of the mainstream media?
[01:59.940 --> 02:01.700]  Why bother dealing with professional journalists?
[02:01.940 --> 02:04.340]  Why bother worrying about your messages being distorted?
[02:04.960 --> 02:09.600]  Why worry about, you know, the pokey spaces that they're going to be able to give you inside their publications?
[02:09.600 --> 02:11.520]  Why not just do everything yourself?
[02:11.720 --> 02:13.440]  Why not just publish directly?
[02:14.940 --> 02:18.500]  Well, the main answer is because it's just like, you know, robbing banks, that's where the money is.
[02:18.760 --> 02:20.200]  The answer is that's where the audience is.
[02:20.660 --> 02:25.200]  Only a tiny chunk of podcasts and blogs have sizable audiences.
[02:25.520 --> 02:35.760]  I think the biggest one, which is actually competitive with mainstream media, from the research I was able to look around, is the Daily Cost, which is a left-wing sort of blog.
[02:35.760 --> 02:39.300]  It gets about, they claim, about 5 million unique visitors per week.
[02:39.500 --> 02:42.060]  When you look at that after that, then, there's a huge drop-off.
[02:42.180 --> 02:44.740]  I think Fark and Boing Boing are the next level down.
[02:44.900 --> 02:47.640]  And Boing Boing gets in 600,000 users per week.
[02:47.780 --> 02:51.800]  If you go to the next level after that, it's a huge, massive, massive drop-off.
[02:52.320 --> 02:56.100]  If you go to podcasts, the total number of people in the U.S.
[02:56.120 --> 02:59.180]  who have downloaded podcasts in the last 30 days is about 10 million people.
[02:59.760 --> 03:01.240]  That's a figure from Nielsen Research.
[03:01.400 --> 03:04.620]  And I think they just updated that figure today, so it might be a little off.
[03:05.320 --> 03:18.340]  So really, you're looking at most blogs that you're going to, publishing without machines to drive them, are going to have maybe a few hundred if you're lucky, a few thousand if you're doing really well readers.
[03:18.580 --> 03:20.600]  Compare this with mainstream media figures.
[03:21.160 --> 03:32.420]  The biggest magazine in the United States, and I apologize, these figures are all very U.S.-centric, is Parade Magazine, which is a newspaper that goes inside Sunday newspapers around the country.
[03:32.420 --> 03:37.580]  And it gets, it's the big gorilla on the block, because it gets 35.5 million readers per issue.
[03:38.120 --> 03:41.680]  Every morning on today's show, they get 5.5 million people tuning in.
[03:42.500 --> 03:51.360]  CNN.com, which is a mainstream media website, gets 5.5 million weeks a week, which again is a little bit more than the daily cost, but of course, much, much, much more than Boing Boing.
[03:51.360 --> 03:59.400]  And also, don't forget the daily cost and Boing Boing, those are worldwide audiences, whereas, you know, CNN really is, their statistics they had broken down to just U.S.
[03:59.800 --> 04:02.240]  Newsweek 3.2, USA Today 2.5.
[04:02.500 --> 04:12.460]  Even something like the New York Daily News gets 750,000 readers per issue, which is 150,000 readers more per issue than the daily cost get per, in an entire week worldwide.
[04:12.460 --> 04:14.340]  This is not to, like, dismiss.
[04:14.740 --> 04:20.560]  I know some people in the print industry like to, like, kind of pretend it's not happening, blogs are not happening.
[04:20.800 --> 04:22.200]  Blogs do have a huge impact.
[04:22.720 --> 04:26.240]  They're having a massive impact, actually, mostly on the mainstream media.
[04:26.720 --> 04:38.520]  When blogs do have an impact, like that whole incident where, you know, they found out that maybe those Dan Rather memos were being forged, the method how they really reached the masses was via the mainstream media.
[04:39.140 --> 04:45.040]  If you notice, a lot of mainstream media sites, especially newspapers, are becoming more and more and more like new media stuff.
[04:45.180 --> 04:49.260]  If you saw me around earlier today, you might have seen me dragging a video camera around.
[04:49.500 --> 04:55.620]  Well, that's because when I started working at Spectrum five years ago, all I really needed to bring to a conference was a little notepad.
[04:55.740 --> 04:58.780]  Now I've got to bring a still camera and an audio recorder for a podcast.
[04:58.780 --> 05:01.040]  I've got to bring a video camera so I can do vlogs.
[05:01.160 --> 05:03.700]  And this makes going to places a real pain in the butt.
[05:03.800 --> 05:06.260]  But we have become more like new media.
[05:06.260 --> 05:11.260]  And in the same way, very large new media tends to become a lot more like the mainstream media.
[05:11.400 --> 05:15.020]  People become professionalized, people get paychecks, people start worrying where money is coming from.
[05:15.220 --> 05:17.380]  So there is a kind of a continuum between the two.
[05:19.440 --> 05:24.260]  The key to really getting your message across to journalists, that's all said, that's why you should talk to them.
[05:24.600 --> 05:27.020]  Now, you know, what's the best way to talk to them?
[05:27.020 --> 05:37.080]  Is to really think about what makes professional journalists like myself different from citizen journalists, or people who are writing in academic books, or people who are doing technical literature.
[05:38.000 --> 05:39.840]  And this goes back to understanding.
[05:40.040 --> 05:42.040]  A lot of people think, there's really...
[05:42.040 --> 05:55.980]  If the New York Times wants to write about supernova, that really, that in some way, should almost be a kind of a simplified version of a professional academic talking about supernova in a journal.
[05:56.140 --> 06:03.980]  Some people have that idea, and that if it's not done that way, that you're dumbing it down, you're simplifying it, you're bastardizing the science, you're going for news-tainment.
[06:03.980 --> 06:07.900]  When, in fact, you really need to understand that they're radically different creatures.
[06:08.100 --> 06:10.600]  They have very different objectives, they have very different aims.
[06:10.800 --> 06:23.420]  And if you can understand that, first off, you won't get annoyed quite so much when you read the papers, but also you'll understand how to pitch your stories to them when it comes time, that you want to put something in front of the mainstream media.
[06:24.300 --> 06:33.480]  The big thing that makes a difference from, say, citizen journalists or academic journalists, is that their livelihood, my livelihood, depends on lots and lots of people reading something they don't have to read.
[06:33.480 --> 06:40.740]  I've written thousands of words in my lifetime, but not one single person has had to have read those for their job.
[06:41.100 --> 06:48.000]  This contrast would say, for instance, material you might find in a journal, where people, you know, if they're involved in a profession, they do have to keep up.
[06:48.180 --> 06:55.600]  If you're in school and you need to read a textbook, you kind of have to read that material, which is often why that material is, you know, often worthy but dull.
[06:56.120 --> 06:57.880]  There are things they have to carry, they will carry.
[06:58.100 --> 07:00.480]  We can't afford to have material that's worthy but dull.
[07:00.480 --> 07:04.900]  Publications which, you know, go down that route very rapidly lose readership.
[07:05.020 --> 07:14.520]  Because readers often say, we want substance, we want information, we want solid material, we want real hardcore stuff that we can really sink our teeth into.
[07:15.140 --> 07:26.960]  The problem is, that's what readers say, but actually it turns out then that those are the, that very rapidly, those are publications that get, you know, put aside for further study at a later point and never actually get read.
[07:27.920 --> 07:29.960]  We're really interested in stuff that gets read.
[07:30.240 --> 07:38.420]  So, I hate the word, you know, some people try to say, they excuse terrible excesses in the media by saying, well, it has to be entertaining.
[07:38.680 --> 07:41.760]  They use that reason that nobody has to read what a journalist puts out.
[07:42.100 --> 07:46.560]  Nobody has to, very, very few people have to read the New York Times for their job.
[07:46.760 --> 07:48.620]  Nobody has to read my publication for their job.
[07:48.760 --> 07:51.620]  And they use that as an excuse to say, well, we have to be entertaining.
[07:51.620 --> 07:54.060]  The truth is, you don't have to be entertaining.
[07:55.980 --> 07:56.780]  That's an excuse.
[07:56.980 --> 07:58.620]  But you do have to be compelling.
[07:59.060 --> 07:59.920]  Compelling is the word.
[07:59.980 --> 08:08.700]  Which means, when a reader comes to your publication, or comes to an article in your publication, they are given reasons to read that all the way through to the end.
[08:08.980 --> 08:14.140]  Otherwise, what happens, because there are a lot of things going on in people's lives, they'll give you a few sentences.
[08:14.140 --> 08:20.540]  They may even give you a paragraph, or two paragraphs, and then if they don't really feel they're being pulled through the article, they'll stop.
[08:20.820 --> 08:27.220]  Or if you have a great start, and then you go off into the garden weeds, and they don't understand why they're reading, or it becomes boring, they just stop.
[08:27.520 --> 08:29.300]  Because they don't have to read it.
[08:29.480 --> 08:35.200]  There are many other things that they might have to read professionally, but most of what mainstream journalists do is not included in that group.
[08:36.900 --> 08:40.580]  So, one of the best ways to make articles compelling is to use a trick.
[08:41.240 --> 08:44.740]  A very old school trick, and that's to make articles into stories.
[08:45.300 --> 08:49.080]  And in fact, this is done so often that the word story is often synonymous with articles.
[08:49.280 --> 08:50.260]  You know, I wrote a story today.
[08:50.340 --> 08:51.600]  Did you see that story in the newspaper?
[08:52.080 --> 08:58.800]  But stories are very specific type of articles, and stories have a very specific relationship with reality.
[08:59.180 --> 09:00.460]  Stories have narratives.
[09:00.760 --> 09:02.080]  Beginning, middle, and an end.
[09:02.080 --> 09:07.220]  This is a dramatic structure that when your brain sees it in an article, you recognize that structure.
[09:07.500 --> 09:12.380]  And knowing there's going to be, you know, after the beginning, a middle, and an end, it pulls you through the article.
[09:12.580 --> 09:13.760]  It keeps you reading.
[09:14.140 --> 09:15.180]  They also have to be novel.
[09:15.480 --> 09:17.320]  Usually, you know, most of us are writing news.
[09:17.440 --> 09:19.660]  We need kind of stuff that's fresh and interesting.
[09:19.920 --> 09:21.880]  So, here's the thing.
[09:22.100 --> 09:34.120]  We're looking for those... When we're looking for stories, when we go out into the world to look for things to report on, we're looking for that subset of reality that happens to fit a narrative structure.
[09:35.220 --> 09:36.480]  Which is not everything.
[09:36.880 --> 09:41.180]  Everything gets covered by academic stuff and technical literature and so on.
[09:41.360 --> 09:47.840]  We are only interested in that subset of things which already fit or can be made to fit into a narrative structure.
[09:48.840 --> 09:52.200]  You know, again, we're not interested in reporting the worthy but dull stuff.
[09:52.680 --> 09:56.940]  So, there's a lot of reality that just does not cut it from a journalist's standpoint.
[09:58.700 --> 10:00.300]  So, a little bit more about narratives.
[10:00.600 --> 10:02.780]  Narratives can be character-driven or plot-driven.
[10:03.220 --> 10:05.820]  A profile, for example, is mostly character-driven.
[10:05.940 --> 10:06.440]  It's about a person.
[10:06.560 --> 10:09.360]  But even within a profile, you'll see plot.
[10:09.500 --> 10:10.600]  You'll see a dramatic arc.
[10:10.740 --> 10:12.640]  You'll see the person had a challenge to overcome.
[10:13.080 --> 10:14.440]  Something happens to them.
[10:14.520 --> 10:15.540]  There's something interesting.
[10:16.340 --> 10:20.420]  There's some, you know, some events are weaved into just a profile.
[10:20.600 --> 10:25.420]  It's not just kind of like a personality sort of e-harmony sort of, you know, kind of a profile.
[10:26.780 --> 10:28.900]  Again, a hard news story is mostly plot-driven.
[10:29.080 --> 10:35.140]  But even in very hard news stories, the best ones will take the time to sketch a couple characters.
[10:35.340 --> 10:42.280]  To make you care about... You know, if there's a massive three-alarm fire, you'll notice they'll go and they'll find a quote from the little old lady on the corner of the block.
[10:42.280 --> 10:43.660]  Who's just watched her house burn down.
[10:44.160 --> 10:49.560]  And that's because it's a hard news story, but you really needed a character to really make that story compelling.
[10:51.760 --> 10:54.980]  So, unless they're really well-written, we also need to demonstrate relevance.
[10:55.180 --> 10:57.520]  Now, I've picked up, you know, articles like The New Yorker.
[10:57.600 --> 11:01.740]  And I've read, you know, an occasional time, articles on...
[11:01.740 --> 11:03.900]  Just things that are completely irrelevant to me.
[11:04.080 --> 11:10.720]  But they're relevant and they're so beautifully written, you just keep reading them because you just don't mind going down that garden path with the author.
[11:10.720 --> 11:16.040]  The cold hard truth is, most of us are not good enough on a day-to-day basis to do that.
[11:16.240 --> 11:18.860]  And most of the times, our subject material won't support it.
[11:19.000 --> 11:21.340]  So, we really are looking for things that we can...
[11:21.340 --> 11:25.500]  Where our readers will know very, very quickly, why am I reading this?
[11:25.840 --> 11:28.380]  So, you have to give them reasons for why they're reading it.
[11:28.480 --> 11:34.620]  Why they're reading this article and not watching television or reading the next article long in the paper or reading a different publication.
[11:36.120 --> 11:39.820]  So, what does all that sort of, you know, what journalists want to get out of the universe...
[11:39.820 --> 11:41.480]  What does it mean for you on a practical basis?
[11:44.120 --> 11:48.700]  It means you are really going to increase your coverage if you can help journalists see your story has these four things.
[11:49.120 --> 11:55.280]  Characters, a plot, things that actually happen, the context, the significance of the event, a novelty.
[11:55.960 --> 12:02.220]  The reason this is so important is that all of us, you know, so many things are going on in the world.
[12:02.360 --> 12:04.200]  And all of us have so many things to choose from.
[12:04.340 --> 12:07.740]  You know, I get, you know, dozens and dozens of press releases in a week.
[12:07.920 --> 12:10.200]  Some people get hundreds in a week.
[12:11.340 --> 12:15.960]  And, you know, why does your story deserve coverage rather than above another story?
[12:16.360 --> 12:21.540]  Again, you know, their significance and intrinsic merit are part of it.
[12:21.900 --> 12:24.220]  But also part of it is, you know, are there cool characters?
[12:24.360 --> 12:24.960]  Is there a plot?
[12:25.300 --> 12:29.540]  If you can, you have to at least show one of these things to be considered for...
[12:29.540 --> 12:31.100]  That a journalist is going to look at you.
[12:31.180 --> 12:35.180]  If you have all four, you're almost guaranteed to get some kind of coverage.
[12:35.300 --> 12:41.120]  Unless, you know, it's completely chock-a-block and you get pushed out because, you know, there's been a massive terrorist attack and all the coverage is about that.
[12:41.340 --> 12:45.620]  But you at least are going to get a journalist to pay attention to you if you can demonstrate these.
[12:46.820 --> 12:47.660]  So, how do you do that?
[12:47.760 --> 12:49.020]  Well, interesting characters.
[12:49.900 --> 12:53.700]  This is exactly why you see a lot of special interest groups seek out celebrities.
[12:53.900 --> 12:59.660]  If you have a nice big name and can put that nice big name into your press release, that's instantly interesting.
[12:59.960 --> 13:00.360]  Congratulations.
[13:00.860 --> 13:02.140]  You've passed the first hurdle.
[13:03.080 --> 13:08.640]  Most of us are not fortunate to be able to, like, pull big names or big celebrities or rockstar CEOs, you know.
[13:10.700 --> 13:18.640]  So, instead, what you need to think about is, and this is kind of preparation for a press release, but write one or two sentence bios about you.
[13:19.780 --> 13:26.060]  Like, if you're interested in getting a journalist into your story, imagine if you had to write what's the most interesting thing about you in one sentence.
[13:26.620 --> 13:27.440]  What would that be?
[13:27.440 --> 13:27.980]  And here's the other thing.
[13:28.060 --> 13:28.900]  It has to be relevant.
[13:29.040 --> 13:32.960]  It really doesn't matter that you're the world's best, you know, matchstick modeler.
[13:33.120 --> 13:39.400]  It has to be something that's apropos to whatever it is you're getting the... trying to get the journalist interested in.
[13:39.400 --> 13:42.000]  So, the first example here is Jane Joes, host of Tech Travels.
[13:42.120 --> 13:44.880]  She's backpacked across four cottons from her laptop.
[13:45.100 --> 13:45.820]  That's fantastic.
[13:46.420 --> 13:49.040]  That's going to be very interesting immediately to any kind of a journalist.
[13:49.220 --> 13:50.320]  And also, it does the other thing.
[13:50.380 --> 13:52.080]  It establishes her authority.
[13:52.700 --> 13:55.820]  It says, you know, this is actually somebody who I can trust what they say.
[13:56.220 --> 13:59.280]  Because a lot of people don't understand this.
[13:59.460 --> 14:06.820]  You know, I went and I tried to get this journalist to listen to me, and they didn't listen to me, or they didn't, you know, give my words any weight, or they just ignored me.
[14:07.080 --> 14:08.940]  Because they didn't have a reason to believe you.
[14:08.940 --> 14:11.680]  We hear lots and lots of people talk to us about... but lots and lots of stuff.
[14:11.880 --> 14:15.400]  But why do you... why are you the person who I'm going to believe?
[14:15.600 --> 14:22.860]  And it helps if you can establish what's called in sort of non-fiction book publishing trade, a platform, a reason, a credibility.
[14:23.200 --> 14:28.740]  So, the second one there is a person who's not as exciting as an individual as Jane, but it says a lot of good things.
[14:29.200 --> 14:33.760]  He's been an open source advocate for 10 years and worked for several industry-leading companies for founding his own startup.
[14:34.100 --> 14:37.980]  And it's not dramatically exciting, but it does establish a great deal of authority.
[14:37.980 --> 14:39.580]  And it says, this person has a lot of background.
[14:39.840 --> 14:42.340]  And this person is probably a useful person to talk to.
[14:44.260 --> 14:45.540]  Again, intelligent plot.
[14:45.800 --> 14:46.700]  Explain what happened.
[14:47.600 --> 14:51.260]  You have to... if you're talking about making a press release, or you're talking about...
[14:51.260 --> 14:55.740]  you're trying to report, you know, that something terrible happened to you, and you've got to... you've got to explain it.
[14:55.780 --> 14:56.860]  You've got to connect the dots.
[14:57.060 --> 14:59.620]  You cannot, you know, do dot, dot, dot.
[14:59.620 --> 15:10.020]  A lot of people, oftentimes, when they're writing online or trying to be clever or funny, they'll make an implication, and they'll say something like, you know, but of course we knew he was going to have problems because I saw, you know, he was using,
[15:10.020 --> 15:12.200]  you know, Microsoft Entourage, dot, dot, dot.
[15:12.860 --> 15:17.080]  Now, that may actually mean something to you guys, but it will mean absolutely nothing to a journalist.
[15:17.140 --> 15:25.160]  A journalist doesn't know most of the time to connect that little insinuation that maybe Microsoft Entourage is not the most reliable product that you might think.
[15:25.540 --> 15:27.000]  You have to be explicit.
[15:27.620 --> 15:29.240]  And, you know, don't try to be clever.
[15:29.380 --> 15:32.280]  Just write things in very simple, straight prose.
[15:32.560 --> 15:34.080]  This happened, this happened, that happened.
[15:34.300 --> 15:35.100]  Don't try to be clever.
[15:35.600 --> 15:36.800]  Avoid jargon like the plague.
[15:36.940 --> 15:38.920]  If you do have to bring in a word, use it.
[15:39.000 --> 15:44.160]  The way to avoid jargon is to write really about what something does, not how it's implemented.
[15:44.440 --> 15:49.020]  So, really think about, you know, what does this technology actually do?
[15:49.160 --> 15:53.980]  So, for instance, if you were originally, back in the day, talking about the personal computer, you wouldn't use the phrase PC.
[15:53.980 --> 15:56.200]  You would say a home computer that anybody can use.
[15:56.320 --> 16:02.140]  You know, you would try to use anything but avoid using that phrase PC because at that time nobody knew what PCs were.
[16:03.240 --> 16:10.640]  Another good way to do all this kind of stuff to explain yourself and explain your plot is just to imagine that you're telling your story to someone in a bar who has nothing about your subject.
[16:10.920 --> 16:14.720]  So, think about how you would simplify it and cut it down with a bar and noisy people and people shouting.
[16:14.800 --> 16:16.800]  You know, you're not really going to be able to go into great detail.
[16:16.980 --> 16:18.820]  You're going to really simplify things down.
[16:18.820 --> 16:23.820]  And again, always think in concrete terms about whatever it is thing does.
[16:24.000 --> 16:25.900]  Don't really worry too much about the implementation.
[16:26.260 --> 16:29.200]  If you have a great new encryption technique, they really...
[16:29.200 --> 16:36.080]  Probably not wise to get into the depths of how you did all this mathematical convolutions and stuff like this and compiled a little source code.
[16:36.400 --> 16:39.920]  Really, you want to focus on what is the point of that software?
[16:40.040 --> 16:44.740]  What is the impact it's going to have on privacy or Chinese dissidents or whatever it is.
[16:46.460 --> 16:47.880]  And that goes into significance.
[16:48.060 --> 16:50.320]  You have to explain the context of what's going on.
[16:50.940 --> 16:53.780]  And here, we'll talk a little bit about how you do this research later.
[16:54.140 --> 16:58.620]  It really helps to understand what a journalist's target audience is.
[16:58.940 --> 17:04.140]  And the context of what you're talking about can shift depending on who you're talking to.
[17:04.300 --> 17:06.400]  You know, in an unfriendly world, this can be called spin.
[17:07.540 --> 17:11.120]  But it's actually a really useful way of getting your point across to a specific audience.
[17:11.120 --> 17:14.200]  So here, we have the example that there's a new technology...
[17:14.200 --> 17:17.340]  a new media technology that may or may not violate the DMCA.
[17:19.020 --> 17:25.240]  If you were talking to me as a tech journalist, I probably would be interested in the technology and how all the bits and pieces work and how this happened.
[17:25.420 --> 17:30.320]  But if you were talking to, say, somebody from the Wall Street Journal, probably not the first thing you want to lead off on.
[17:30.420 --> 17:39.120]  If you were going to tell me, you'd say, well, this technology has just come along and really important because we think that, you know, people in America are not going to be able to use this technology, but everybody else is.
[17:39.120 --> 17:41.940]  So maybe it's going to damage America's global competitiveness.
[17:43.000 --> 17:49.560]  If you were talking to a mainstream, say, somebody from the Village Voice, you might say, well, we're concerned the DMCA is going to limit First Amendment rights.
[17:49.780 --> 17:57.560]  So you're looking at the different impacts of your technology and you're pulling those impacts out and you're giving them to the journalist in a way that they can understand.
[17:57.560 --> 18:01.120]  Because some journalists are tech beat journalists, other guys are mainstream journalists.
[18:01.540 --> 18:14.560]  At some publications, you know, one guy covers everything technology related and probably actually spends most of their time covering health because that's the kind of the horrible fate that happens to a lot of science journalists and newspapers and so on.
[18:14.660 --> 18:15.880]  They end up covering mostly health.
[18:17.080 --> 18:22.080]  For someone like me where we have much more specialized beats, it's useful to find out, you know, the specific person.
[18:22.960 --> 18:26.520]  It's useful to know that they have a much more specific needs.
[18:29.360 --> 18:30.760]  Again, novelty is a big thing.
[18:30.840 --> 18:31.200]  What's new?
[18:31.320 --> 18:31.760]  What's different?
[18:31.960 --> 18:34.160]  Tell the journalist why this isn't yet another blah.
[18:34.300 --> 18:41.420]  If you're releasing a software package, you know, software packages, very few software comes along that's really revolutionary.
[18:41.740 --> 18:44.180]  Very few of us get to release the first web browser.
[18:44.400 --> 18:46.560]  Very few of us get to release the first spreadsheet.
[18:46.560 --> 18:56.420]  So if you're releasing a piece of software, you really need to explain what makes this different, what makes it not so much an incremental advance over everything that has gone before.
[18:57.160 --> 18:59.320]  If you're releasing, you know, and you...
[18:59.320 --> 19:01.680]  I mean, that's what the Firefox people did very, very well.
[19:01.860 --> 19:03.100]  They released a browser.
[19:03.360 --> 19:04.360]  Well, who cared?
[19:04.640 --> 19:05.940]  I mean, browsers have been around for years.
[19:06.020 --> 19:07.620]  Everyone had a perfectly functional release.
[19:07.620 --> 19:09.500]  So they thought browser on their desktop already.
[19:10.140 --> 19:18.240]  Well, the Mozilla people did a really, really, really good job and the Firefox people of explaining why their browser was different and new and worth talking about.
[19:20.240 --> 19:22.580]  So how to get a journalist's attention in the first place.
[19:24.140 --> 19:26.620]  Do not even bother sending out email.
[19:26.840 --> 19:27.240]  It's spam.
[19:27.460 --> 19:29.920]  I mean, I get probably thousands of these in a week.
[19:30.100 --> 19:33.240]  It most... fortunately, about 80% of it gets eaten by my spam filter.
[19:34.220 --> 19:35.740]  It's just... it's just dead.
[19:35.860 --> 19:37.920]  Don't even bother... don't try sending cold faxes.
[19:38.280 --> 19:46.140]  Cold emails, cold faxes... you know, an email, if it's like an actual letter, it may work, but just a straight-out press release is just junk.
[19:46.520 --> 19:47.700]  Most of it doesn't even get read.
[19:48.100 --> 19:51.600]  I mean, I go to my mailbox, even with snail mail, and I will still get a whole bunch of press releases.
[19:52.060 --> 19:58.660]  What the ones I do pay attention to is if I get an actual letter that's addressed to me.
[19:59.620 --> 20:06.500]  I mean, that happens with an actual proper stamp, not a bulk stamp, so I know that's from, you know, the city bank or wherever it is is bugging me.
[20:07.040 --> 20:20.440]  When I get an actual letter, it is such a rare event that I open it off excitedly, and I sit there and I read the whole thing, whereas with most press releases, I just skim the first two lines, and then it's into the bin, or maybe it's into to study more pile,
[20:20.460 --> 20:24.740]  which may or may not ever gets touched again, and two weeks later time it gets dumped into the trash.
[20:25.540 --> 20:27.880]  If I get an actual letter, I read it all the way through.
[20:27.880 --> 20:32.680]  If it's actually addressed to me, I actually will pay attention to it.
[20:32.900 --> 20:36.420]  And another great thing about the snail mail technology, it's persistent.
[20:36.720 --> 20:40.780]  It stays on people's desks, and it kind of gets shuffled around.
[20:40.880 --> 20:46.520]  And so, as opposed to an email, which is just one line among a hundred other emails on screen.
[20:47.080 --> 20:51.680]  So if you're really trying to get a journalist's attention, a snail mail letter is best.
[20:51.880 --> 20:55.480]  Well, how do you know who to write to and who's the guest person?
[20:55.980 --> 20:59.740]  The key is, you go and you look at articles that are written about your general area.
[20:59.960 --> 21:04.400]  If you see an article you like, look at the byline, find out where that person is, write a letter to them.
[21:04.460 --> 21:06.780]  Dear Joe Bloggs, I saw your article about blah.
[21:07.100 --> 21:09.080]  I think you might also be interested in blah.
[21:09.300 --> 21:09.760]  That's great.
[21:09.820 --> 21:10.660]  It's also flattering.
[21:10.860 --> 21:13.160]  Because the journalist thinks, yo, they really like me.
[21:13.240 --> 21:14.480]  They think I'm an expert in this.
[21:14.480 --> 21:19.700]  And you are getting so close to that person, it's definitely going to read all your stuff at that stage.
[21:20.300 --> 21:23.400]  Another good way about doing this is, you know, look at the mass set of a publication.
[21:23.580 --> 21:24.860]  They often... or look online.
[21:25.340 --> 21:28.660]  Many publications have very specifically what each journalist does.
[21:29.040 --> 21:32.840]  Now, oftentimes they're not in the very obvious areas.
[21:33.120 --> 21:35.320]  The key often is to look in the media kit area.
[21:35.540 --> 21:42.460]  You know, for advertisers and little tag advertisers, many times there they have editorial breakdowns and who journalist covers what coverage.
[21:42.820 --> 21:44.000]  That's a good place to look.
[21:44.580 --> 21:48.240]  If the person doesn't work at a publication, say there's a freelancer, that's great, too.
[21:48.440 --> 21:54.620]  Contact the freelancer, because if a freelancer takes on your idea the freelancer then will pitch it to an editor.
[21:55.320 --> 22:01.940]  An editor is much, much more likely to take an idea from a freelancer than just from, you know, a random press release that comes in over the transom.
[22:02.640 --> 22:04.220]  So don't... you know, contact freelancers.
[22:04.320 --> 22:10.100]  If there's a writer you like who writes in your area, write them a letter and then enclose your press release.
[22:11.580 --> 22:14.980]  What's also useful then is, beyond the press release, is to have extra material.
[22:15.120 --> 22:17.240]  Don't put this material in the layer because, again, there's a lot of stuff.
[22:17.320 --> 22:28.400]  If I see a big, bulky package, I'll be afraid of it because I think it's going to take time, and I don't have time, and it'll just kind of get, again, put in the pile of things to read later when I have, you know, going to get through that worthy material.
[22:28.580 --> 22:30.280]  And sometimes, oftentimes, it doesn't get done.
[22:30.400 --> 22:39.360]  But it is always a really good idea to have a press kit with extra resources, maybe bigger bios about the organization, timelines, all that kind of good stuff.
[22:40.120 --> 22:44.500]  Especially, it's really great if you can include high-quality, high-res images.
[22:44.780 --> 22:47.520]  Notice I said high-quality and high-res.
[22:47.780 --> 22:54.000]  You know, just because you've got 9 megapixels does not mean you've got a publishable picture by any shape of the means.
[22:54.160 --> 22:58.900]  And just because somebody knows how to work all the menus, it doesn't mean they're a good photographer.
[22:59.320 --> 23:04.320]  Find someone who's a good photographer, make sure they're doing high-resolution photographs, and put them on their website.
[23:05.060 --> 23:09.380]  People, the reason why you do this, and you know, it's always nice to create a little four-media section of your website.
[23:09.640 --> 23:10.900]  Because again, journals get flattered.
[23:11.080 --> 23:11.480]  They're privileged.
[23:11.640 --> 23:13.360]  They've been given a special section all for themselves.
[23:14.580 --> 23:23.160]  One of the reasons why that's so great is because if there's crunch time, and an editor has to choose between two stories.
[23:23.600 --> 23:29.860]  And one story has high-resolution imagery that they can just drop into their publication because, you know, you've cleared the copyright.
[23:29.860 --> 23:32.400]  You've said at the bottom, please use our photographs.
[23:32.980 --> 23:39.840]  And another story, you know, which might be just as interesting, involves sending a photographer out, or paying for stock photography.
[23:40.320 --> 23:42.340]  Which story do you think is going to get picked?
[23:43.120 --> 23:46.400]  You know, it's oftentimes logistics is a huge amount.
[23:46.500 --> 23:49.980]  You want to make it as easy and pain-free for them to cover you as possible.
[23:51.580 --> 23:54.020]  So, we talked about, mentioned press releases earlier.
[23:54.320 --> 23:57.880]  When you're writing press releases, remember what journalists like to write about.
[23:57.880 --> 23:59.420]  You want to put all of these things.
[23:59.560 --> 24:00.640]  You want to say something.
[24:00.880 --> 24:03.660]  You know, it might sound lame as, this is a great new event.
[24:03.820 --> 24:04.700]  This is significant.
[24:05.280 --> 24:07.620]  You know, Joe Blow, our CEO, is a fascinating character.
[24:07.740 --> 24:10.360]  Now, you have to back it up in a sentence or two afterwards.
[24:10.520 --> 24:13.080]  Joe Blow is a fascinating character because he's been, you know, he's been...
[24:13.080 --> 24:15.340]  He's spoken to Congress and he's done all this kind of stuff like this.
[24:15.560 --> 24:19.180]  But say very explicitly, use words like, this is new.
[24:19.340 --> 24:20.080]  This is significant.
[24:20.240 --> 24:21.280]  This is a hot new trend.
[24:21.620 --> 24:22.780]  This is important because.
[24:23.000 --> 24:23.720]  This is very significant.
[24:24.080 --> 24:25.480]  Use those kind of keywords.
[24:25.480 --> 24:27.960]  Because that's the language that the journalist is going to look on for.
[24:28.020 --> 24:32.000]  You don't want to have to wade through all your stuff and decode it and then try and work out what's going on.
[24:33.500 --> 24:34.560]  So, here's an example.
[24:34.640 --> 24:37.500]  So here's an example of a really badly written press release.
[24:37.640 --> 24:39.700]  Now, you want more than this, obviously, press release.
[24:39.800 --> 24:41.500]  You want boilerplate and contact detail.
[24:41.640 --> 24:43.740]  But imagine this was the first sentence of a press release I get.
[24:44.880 --> 24:49.700]  Talk to our foundations protesting the FCC's decision to ban encryption of ultrawideband radio communication.
[24:49.940 --> 24:51.060]  And I'm already asleep by the end.
[24:52.700 --> 24:54.560]  And also, it uses jargon.
[24:54.720 --> 24:57.980]  It doesn't really tell me, you know, this is just, you know, whatever.
[24:59.160 --> 25:03.360]  Now, if I happen to really know about the FCC decision, I might pick up on it, but I'm unlikely to.
[25:04.020 --> 25:09.720]  A much better way of writing that would be, again, see here, I haven't even mentioned ultrawideband technology.
[25:09.720 --> 25:10.960]  I haven't even used the jargon.
[25:11.060 --> 25:14.480]  I've just gone to focusing on what the technology does and what its impact.
[25:14.900 --> 25:17.140]  Soon, anyone could snoop on your email or phone calls.
[25:17.140 --> 25:22.760]  Thanks for the decision yesterday by the FCC that bans technology used to protect privacy and next generation wireless devices.
[25:23.060 --> 25:24.580]  I use bans, which is a good action word.
[25:24.740 --> 25:27.000]  I use the magic phrase, next generation.
[25:27.360 --> 25:28.180]  It's novelty.
[25:28.280 --> 25:29.020]  It's fun.
[25:29.140 --> 25:30.460]  It's all going forward.
[25:31.140 --> 25:32.580]  And then, finally, you go again, more action.
[25:32.680 --> 25:37.220]  The Trogdor Foundation is letting citizens who are concerned voice their opinions by launching an online petition.
[25:37.440 --> 25:38.660]  So that's much more dynamic.
[25:38.660 --> 25:41.000]  It's told the journalist a lot more about it.
[25:41.080 --> 25:42.280]  It's told the journalist the significance.
[25:42.680 --> 25:47.100]  Now, probably in the next couple of paragraphs in that press release, you would want to bring in the phrase ultrawideband.
[25:47.500 --> 25:49.740]  But right now, you've told the journalist about the significance.
[25:50.220 --> 25:52.080]  You've told them about what's happening.
[25:53.540 --> 25:56.200]  And you've told them that it's all novel and new.
[25:56.980 --> 25:58.260]  Don't forget the border plate.
[25:59.820 --> 26:01.980]  You need more than just an email address.
[26:02.300 --> 26:05.660]  If you're serious about doing press, you really need to have...
[26:05.660 --> 26:07.100]  Like, look at actual press releases.
[26:07.240 --> 26:11.640]  They usually have, like, a little one-line bio about anybody who's mentioned in the press release.
[26:11.840 --> 26:16.900]  They will have a little blur about the organization that's sending out the press release, which is usually three or four lines.
[26:17.220 --> 26:18.840]  They will have contact details.
[26:19.040 --> 26:21.960]  They will have, oftentimes, a dedicated email address.
[26:23.000 --> 26:25.900]  You know, press at blah, blah, blah, which is a great thing to do.
[26:26.060 --> 26:29.640]  And they also back that up by having a person dedicated to monitoring that channel.
[26:29.640 --> 26:31.640]  They also have phone numbers.
[26:32.160 --> 26:33.720]  I know everybody loves email.
[26:35.040 --> 26:42.700]  But when I just get a press release that just has a phone number, that just has an email as a press contact, it's not great.
[26:42.700 --> 26:44.140]  Because many times, I'm on deadline.
[26:44.340 --> 26:46.460]  I don't want to send an email off into the void and get back.
[26:46.560 --> 26:52.060]  Many times, I want to just be able to lift the phone and talk to somebody and get a sense of what's going on immediately.
[26:52.340 --> 26:55.040]  It's really important to have a telephone number.
[26:55.180 --> 26:58.680]  Journalists like that ability to call up and reach out and touch someone.
[26:58.680 --> 27:00.080]  So you need a phone number.
[27:00.260 --> 27:07.620]  You need to... if you do just have email, you need to be sure that you're getting back to any kind of queries on that, you know, during the day within an hour.
[27:08.340 --> 27:10.220]  Also, press release is one page only.
[27:10.380 --> 27:12.940]  If you need more material, it goes into your media kit.
[27:14.720 --> 27:16.040]  So, say you have an event.
[27:16.180 --> 27:16.840]  You've got a march.
[27:16.900 --> 27:18.140]  You've got a press conference.
[27:18.300 --> 27:19.280]  You've got something going along.
[27:19.420 --> 27:27.240]  How do you get journalists out of their warm, comfortable offices or cubicles out into the treacherous place with the day start burns down to wherever you're going?
[27:27.860 --> 27:29.700]  Another great thing to do is bribery.
[27:30.540 --> 27:31.180]  Simple bribery.
[27:31.660 --> 27:34.120]  You know, if I have a choice of two...
[27:36.620 --> 27:37.460]  I'm going to just let it die.
[27:37.880 --> 27:44.360]  If I have a choice of two events to go to, and one is saying, well, we will supply you, you know, well, of course we'll have, you know, wine and cheese.
[27:45.000 --> 27:46.040]  And the other event isn't.
[27:46.280 --> 27:48.120]  You know, which one am I going to go to?
[27:48.260 --> 27:51.260]  If I think the two are pretty much equal in use, I'm going to go to wine and cheese.
[27:51.260 --> 27:55.400]  Because, you know, they don't pay us that much, and then free food and free booze is great.
[27:56.160 --> 28:00.080]  If you're having a larger event, it's usually a really good idea to also let the journalists know.
[28:00.200 --> 28:01.960]  There will be a special area set aside for them.
[28:02.200 --> 28:08.040]  And you also want to think about, which could be anything as simple for making sure there are reserved seats at the front of an audience.
[28:08.200 --> 28:09.760]  Now, sometimes people get annoyed at this.
[28:09.760 --> 28:13.920]  Well, why do they get to just come in and sit down and ponce around, and then they go out and...
[28:13.920 --> 28:18.640]  Well, because think of them as representing thousands and thousands of thousands of other people.
[28:19.660 --> 28:22.700]  Yeah, you know, and, you know, a little bit of privilege goes a long way.
[28:23.440 --> 28:30.120]  A special area can be something just as simple as a quiet area where they can do interviews and plug in their laptops to recharge them.
[28:31.360 --> 28:34.300]  When you are inviting journalists to an event, make sure...
[28:34.300 --> 28:35.160]  And you can say this right up.
[28:35.220 --> 28:36.180]  You actually write a little paragraph.
[28:36.360 --> 28:39.180]  Hey, you know, so-and-so will be available for interview.
[28:40.680 --> 28:45.100]  And that interview should either be one-on-one opportunities or a press-only conference.
[28:45.320 --> 28:53.940]  If you have a massive scrum of people just coming up and doing it, and it's hard for the journalist to ask questions, that's going to be less appealing for them.
[28:54.040 --> 29:03.800]  Now, they might take a risk and assume they'll be able to ask questions, but it's much more appealing if they know they're going to be able to ask questions and get answers, because that's what makes their reporting reporting.
[29:04.360 --> 29:14.080]  You know, being an eyewitness to things is great, but what's really important is the ability to be able to come and ask questions, specific questions that they can say, even if it's a huge event.
[29:14.200 --> 29:19.720]  You know, I cover space, so I've done NASA press conferences down at the Cape, or all these people shouting and charging.
[29:19.920 --> 29:28.660]  And the reason why we all shout and charge is because, you know, I could write an article just based on everybody else's questions and answers, and just based on the public statements.
[29:28.660 --> 29:32.540]  But you know what, it would look like everybody else's article, because there's nothing new.
[29:32.840 --> 29:40.320]  But the magic thing for me is to be able to say, you know, what makes my readers interested and find my corners, and answer to a question from IEEE spectrum.
[29:40.500 --> 29:42.180]  NASA replied, blah, blah, blah, blah.
[29:42.560 --> 29:48.820]  So I'm really interested in having that one-on-one touch, because it makes my reporting different from everybody else's reporting.
[29:49.820 --> 29:53.280]  And also, you know, make sure people are happy with that kind of stuff.
[29:53.420 --> 29:56.500]  I mean, sometimes you come to events and people are not really interested in talking to the press.
[29:56.800 --> 29:59.740]  You've got to make sure that, yes, they are available and they are willing to talk to people.
[29:59.860 --> 30:06.320]  And if that takes time out of their day, well, that's going to, you know, you've got to work that out and negotiate it with them, so they're not snarky and mean.
[30:11.440 --> 30:12.000]  Giving interviews.
[30:12.700 --> 30:15.260]  One of the most important things I would say about interviews is don't give them.
[30:15.860 --> 30:18.720]  And what I mean to that is don't give them right off the cuff.
[30:18.980 --> 30:27.580]  If you're, you know, exhibiting or at a press event, or, you know, there's things which you realistically should have prepared for and thought about things in advance, yes, do interviews off the cuff.
[30:27.680 --> 30:29.740]  If you're very experienced, yes, do interviews off the cuff.
[30:30.200 --> 30:32.740]  Generally speaking, never do an interview off the cuff.
[30:32.840 --> 30:36.100]  So if you get a phone call and someone says, Hi, I'm from Word magazine.
[30:36.260 --> 30:37.380]  I hear you've got something going on.
[30:37.460 --> 30:39.400]  Why don't you, you know, do you mind if I ask you a few questions?
[30:39.820 --> 30:45.160]  Best thing to do in that case is to say, Well, I'm really just up to my eyeballs finishing this one thing.
[30:45.240 --> 30:46.700]  Can I give you a call back in 10 minutes?
[30:47.800 --> 30:49.260]  Now, that does two things.
[30:49.260 --> 30:55.540]  One, it probably will get you the journalist's phone number, which can be useful later on if they're not returning your calls or so on.
[30:55.980 --> 31:02.740]  Two, it also gives you just five, 10 minutes where you can just not be flustered and pull yourself together and think.
[31:03.180 --> 31:05.080]  Find out what kind of things you might want to say.
[31:05.160 --> 31:07.700]  You're really only going to get one or two points across in any interview.
[31:07.980 --> 31:09.400]  What are those points you want to say?
[31:09.460 --> 31:11.160]  What things don't you want to say?
[31:11.340 --> 31:16.420]  If you're doing a telephone interview, write those things down so you have them in front of you.
[31:16.420 --> 31:21.860]  When you're in the heat of the moment, you can just end up saying the most umpt things later on.
[31:21.940 --> 31:23.600]  You just go, Oh my God, why did I say that?
[31:24.040 --> 31:26.740]  Asking for a little bit of pause is a really great way of doing that.
[31:27.780 --> 31:36.240]  Also, when you're thinking about the interview and thinking about what you're going to say is, in that initial contact with the journalist, you want to find out who they're working for.
[31:36.360 --> 31:37.380]  Are they a beat journalist?
[31:37.500 --> 31:38.080]  Are they general journalists?
[31:38.260 --> 31:41.040]  Because this is going to tell you what level you're going to pitch.
[31:41.520 --> 31:43.840]  It's going to tell you all those other things we talked about earlier.
[31:43.840 --> 31:52.480]  What kind of context is a journalist interested in, and what is relevant to their audience, and those are the kind of things you're going to say.
[31:52.680 --> 31:55.000]  So you're going to think about what you're not going to say.
[31:55.100 --> 31:59.300]  You're not going to go through the same spiel for every single journalist.
[31:59.400 --> 32:00.520]  You're going to have to tailor it.
[32:00.580 --> 32:02.840]  If you do that, you actually get much better results.
[32:03.660 --> 32:06.180]  Don't suggest an email interview, because that's awful.
[32:06.240 --> 32:08.960]  We like a little bit of interactivity to be able to talk to you, a little bit of colour.
[32:08.960 --> 32:13.240]  Because, you know, half of what we do is...
[32:14.500 --> 32:19.420]  When I call people up for a technical story and I'm looking for interest, half of what I'm interested in is technical.
[32:19.680 --> 32:20.780]  I want to be educated.
[32:20.920 --> 32:22.220]  I want to know how something works.
[32:22.320 --> 32:23.380]  I want to know how this happened.
[32:23.500 --> 32:24.760]  I want to know who said what to whom.
[32:25.200 --> 32:30.940]  The other half is that I'm actually, again, because I'm interested in narrative, I'm interested in what you thought.
[32:31.200 --> 32:32.640]  I'm interested in what you felt.
[32:33.400 --> 32:36.660]  Because that goes into articles, and that can really pick up an article.
[32:37.460 --> 32:50.600]  So, you know, again, I cover space, so I won't just... If I'm talking with a... Let's say, you know, a guy's landing something on Mars, I'm not just going to talk about the very dry technical details of, you know, what rocks you're going to analyze.
[32:50.860 --> 32:53.400]  I'm going to ask him, how did you feel when it landed?
[32:54.060 --> 32:58.460]  You know, these things are very difficult to do in an email kind of situation, and they make articles sync.
[32:58.580 --> 33:00.720]  So we don't do email interviews.
[33:00.940 --> 33:02.440]  You know, say, yeah, why don't you give me a call?
[33:02.720 --> 33:03.340]  Talk to him on the phone.
[33:03.780 --> 33:05.480]  Don't set weird conditions for interviews.
[33:05.760 --> 33:06.640]  You know, well, you can...
[33:06.640 --> 33:07.300]  Can I say it this way?
[33:07.720 --> 33:11.300]  I mean, Richard Stallman can get away with this, almost.
[33:11.560 --> 33:17.880]  I mean, maybe, you know, where he has... You know, I've never interviewed him, but reputedly he often will set conditions.
[33:18.060 --> 33:19.820]  You have to refer to Linux as GNU Linux.
[33:20.120 --> 33:26.520]  You know, with his biographer, I think I noticed that he demanded that there be certain copyright, you know, considerations and so on.
[33:27.220 --> 33:29.740]  He might be able to get away with that because he's him.
[33:29.960 --> 33:31.000]  You probably will not.
[33:31.100 --> 33:35.680]  If you start setting weird conditions on an email, on an interview, people are just going to go, you're not worth the bother.
[33:37.120 --> 33:39.700]  Also, be incredibly tolerant of stupid, stupid questions.
[33:40.160 --> 33:41.460]  It doesn't mean the journalist is stupid.
[33:41.620 --> 33:44.940]  It just means they have to ask them for the sake of an interview.
[33:45.160 --> 33:50.180]  So, for instance, you know, I've been doing this a few years, so I have a rough idea how a compiler works.
[33:50.260 --> 33:56.060]  I may not be able to write one, but I understand, you know, source code in, compiles, object code out.
[33:56.160 --> 33:57.280]  You know, I understand that.
[33:57.280 --> 34:02.920]  But if I'm talking to you in an open source project, I'll often ask, so, you know, source code, what's that all about?
[34:04.020 --> 34:13.700]  Because I want to put a quote in the journal, in the article from you that explains what source code is, because I need to explain it to my readers who are not going to know necessarily, you know, what's going on.
[34:13.840 --> 34:16.420]  So even if the journalist asks you stupid questions, it doesn't mean they're stupid.
[34:17.000 --> 34:18.220]  There's often a reason for them.
[34:18.480 --> 34:20.180]  Of course, then, of course, you do get clueless journalists.
[34:20.360 --> 34:24.700]  And again, you're not really going to make yourself any points if you, you know, treat the person as stupid.
[34:24.700 --> 34:26.800]  But they may just be not very well educated.
[34:28.080 --> 34:29.520]  So, again, do is for interviews.
[34:29.680 --> 34:30.620]  Speak slowly and clearly.
[34:30.820 --> 34:31.460]  Tell your answers.
[34:32.140 --> 34:32.860]  Keep notes.
[34:33.020 --> 34:34.100]  Always write down if you can.
[34:34.320 --> 34:37.780]  You also might want to consider, you know, if you're going to do a lot of public relations.
[34:37.920 --> 34:40.200]  You know, if you've been given, you know, you're the press guy.
[34:40.440 --> 34:40.800]  Congratulations.
[34:40.800 --> 34:41.740]  You're going to do media outreach.
[34:41.920 --> 34:43.220]  And buying something like this.
[34:44.000 --> 34:45.400]  This is from RadioShack.
[34:45.460 --> 34:46.140]  It costs a few dollars.
[34:46.480 --> 34:48.280]  This is the deluxe version.
[34:48.320 --> 34:49.200]  It just plugs into a phone.
[34:49.320 --> 34:51.880]  And then this end plugs into my recorder.
[34:51.880 --> 34:56.940]  There's an even cheaper version, which actually works even more phones, which is just like a little induction coil pickup.
[34:57.100 --> 35:00.140]  You just slap it on your phone and record away.
[35:00.320 --> 35:02.100]  Always assume that you are being recorded.
[35:02.420 --> 35:06.300]  State laws vary, as I think those people during the Clinton era found out.
[35:06.600 --> 35:11.360]  But certainly in New York State, only one person has to be aware that a phone call is being recorded.
[35:11.660 --> 35:15.100]  And so I record pretty much all my interviews uniformly.
[35:15.700 --> 35:17.800]  So just assume you're being recorded.
[35:18.420 --> 35:20.840]  Again, explain things, how things work in concrete terms.
[35:21.340 --> 35:25.840]  Sometimes people, again, you know, technical people, get very annoyed.
[35:26.260 --> 35:30.920]  And they think it's doing horrible things to simplify something.
[35:31.560 --> 35:37.660]  They want to explain all the nuances and all the gray areas and everything, to set the record straight and to make sure everything is understood.
[35:37.900 --> 35:41.500]  And they think they're going to get in trouble with their peers if they're seen as doing this.
[35:41.500 --> 35:43.040]  It's not actually a crime.
[35:43.320 --> 35:45.400]  What you're after is you just want to be accurate.
[35:45.660 --> 35:47.840]  You really don't need to worry about precision.
[35:48.380 --> 35:55.360]  So for those of you of a technical event, so precision, for instance, in a number, is the number of, you know, significant figures after the decimal point.
[35:55.660 --> 36:02.840]  So, you know, if I was looking for the value of pi, 2.98476475 is very precise but not very accurate.
[36:03.160 --> 36:05.460]  You're much better off just saying, well, pi is around 3.
[36:05.840 --> 36:09.300]  You know, that's not very precise, but it's much more accurate.
[36:09.720 --> 36:11.340]  You want to give accuracy.
[36:11.940 --> 36:12.860]  Don't worry about precision.
[36:13.100 --> 36:14.160]  Don't worry about details.
[36:14.800 --> 36:15.160]  Simplify.
[36:15.360 --> 36:18.000]  Say, well, this kind of... well, it works by encrypting.
[36:18.080 --> 36:21.020]  Now, actually, you know, under the HUD, incredible, massive things are happening.
[36:21.200 --> 36:24.860]  But just write very, very simple, again, what does it do?
[36:25.640 --> 36:29.700]  Another great thing to do is, at the end of it, is suggest the names of other people that journalists should talk to.
[36:29.940 --> 36:31.700]  So you're, again, promoting your meme.
[36:32.340 --> 36:35.560]  You know, people of you kind of, you know, are going to say things in your world view.
[36:35.760 --> 36:38.840]  And the journalist is going to love you for this because it increases their number of sources.
[36:38.980 --> 36:43.680]  And they are going to think very, very favorably later on because you've been very helpful to them.
[36:43.820 --> 36:51.760]  So next time they have a question about a particular technology, they're much more likely to just bring you up out of the blue and say, hey, well, what did you think about this?
[36:51.820 --> 36:52.520]  Or this is very helpful.
[36:52.700 --> 36:54.760]  Or, you know, do you know of any other people you could talk to?
[36:54.920 --> 37:00.460]  And it just increases the number of chances you have in the future of, you know, having a relationship with that journalist.
[37:01.620 --> 37:01.980]  Don'ts.
[37:02.060 --> 37:03.020]  Don't talk anywhere noisy.
[37:03.200 --> 37:03.940]  Don't use speaker phones.
[37:04.380 --> 37:06.280]  Never confer with people who aren't part of the interview.
[37:06.420 --> 37:12.720]  So I sometimes will get this with like, you know, when there are PR people involved, I'll ring up the guy and go, well, there are Mr. So-and-so.
[37:13.220 --> 37:17.040]  You know, there are all of these terrible rumors that your product is unsafe.
[37:17.140 --> 37:18.020]  Is your product safe?
[37:18.380 --> 37:23.580]  And the answer is, well, yes, it's perfectly safe.
[37:23.780 --> 37:25.980]  You know, you're just not being incredibly credible there.
[37:25.980 --> 37:28.700]  Don't, just, just, it's you, it's the journalist.
[37:29.260 --> 37:32.220]  Don't go off on tangents or what I call theory of everything rants.
[37:32.440 --> 37:46.840]  Which is where one little thing you're trying to explain suddenly becomes this massive, increasing world, your, you know, worldview about how, you know, corporate America is bad and how corporate everything is bad and they're polluting and the global warming and everything.
[37:46.840 --> 37:49.660]  You don't need to explain your entire worldview in an interview.
[37:49.920 --> 37:53.120]  Just your little segment that's actually relevant to what's going on.
[37:53.360 --> 37:54.800]  Never gets, no, don't swear.
[37:55.240 --> 37:57.180]  You know, if you can really avoid it, because it looks terrible in print.
[37:57.300 --> 38:00.700]  It's okay to be excited, but don't get all agita and shouting at people.
[38:00.980 --> 38:01.980]  You know, don't insult people.
[38:02.200 --> 38:04.220]  Because again, it looks terrible in print, you know.
[38:04.400 --> 38:08.360]  And don't say things about people you don't know or organizations you don't know.
[38:08.440 --> 38:10.180]  For instance, you know, Bill Gates.
[38:10.540 --> 38:15.720]  Unless you've personally met Bill Gates, don't go around calling him, oh, he's the biggest jerk ever, you know.
[38:15.920 --> 38:16.540]  You've never met him.
[38:16.620 --> 38:17.940]  He might be a very nice person individually.
[38:18.180 --> 38:24.920]  But if you, that's the kind of thing that, quote, that gets pulled out of context and looks, can look just terrible in print depending on how it happens.
[38:25.440 --> 38:32.120]  The good rule of thumb to bay is assume that everything you say, imagine everything you ever said in that interview is going to end up in print.
[38:32.360 --> 38:34.780]  Would you really want every single word to be in print?
[38:34.920 --> 38:36.880]  I mean, that's the way you should think about it.
[38:37.240 --> 38:43.160]  The reality, and we'll talk about it a little bit later, is that maybe ten words of yours are going to go in print, but you don't want them to be bad words.
[38:43.160 --> 38:45.420]  You want them to be your words and your preferred words.
[38:46.420 --> 38:48.040]  And again, don't insult the journalist.
[38:48.240 --> 38:55.100]  I mean, sometimes I talk to people and people are, again, they have issues with the media and, you know, I have to, you know, they get annoyed.
[38:55.700 --> 38:57.280]  You know, journalist gets the last word.
[38:57.440 --> 38:59.660]  So it's usually not a good idea to get them usually.
[39:00.640 --> 39:05.880]  Again, and don't get annoyed if you say, you say, well, you know, I think such and such has happened, and I was there, man, and I can tell you.
[39:06.140 --> 39:10.220]  Well, you know, don't be surprised if they ask you to back it up, especially with documents.
[39:10.220 --> 39:19.820]  And if you have documents to back up what you're saying, maybe it's as simple as a white paper, or maybe you do have photographs, or maybe you've got some, you know, document that you...
[39:19.820 --> 39:23.140]  somewhere that backs up what you're saying, offer that to the journalist.
[39:23.320 --> 39:25.240]  Because documentation is actually...
[39:25.240 --> 39:28.020]  of a good journalist is like gold coin.
[39:28.740 --> 39:32.180]  Because eyewitness reports can be he said, she said.
[39:32.400 --> 39:34.340]  But documentation is real documentation.
[39:34.740 --> 39:35.960]  That is just great stuff.
[39:36.080 --> 39:37.540]  That is stuff they can go to the bank on.
[39:37.720 --> 39:40.240]  If you have documentation, offer it to them.
[39:40.600 --> 39:45.160]  If they ask you for documentation, don't get upset that they're not, you know, taking your word for it.
[39:45.240 --> 39:49.440]  Because you don't want a journalist who just takes, you know, sources' words for things.
[39:49.540 --> 39:51.320]  You want journalists to be a little skeptical of you.
[39:51.320 --> 39:53.460]  You know, when you read the paper and you get annoyed.
[39:53.640 --> 39:54.840]  God almighty, they're just...
[39:54.840 --> 39:56.580]  Didn't they ask this guy any hard questions?
[39:56.680 --> 39:57.840]  How are they just reprinting this guy?
[39:57.940 --> 39:58.440]  They're just taking...
[39:58.440 --> 40:00.860]  You know, the same standard is going to be applied to you.
[40:02.200 --> 40:03.660]  So, you've done all this stuff.
[40:03.720 --> 40:05.720]  You've managed to, you know, get a journalist interview.
[40:05.880 --> 40:07.600]  You've done an interview that you think is really well.
[40:08.360 --> 40:09.320]  What can you expect?
[40:10.840 --> 40:14.600]  Your objective, your expectation is that you are going to educate and inform the journalist.
[40:16.760 --> 40:21.040]  You know, say a feature article, which is 3,000 words long.
[40:21.040 --> 40:25.800]  I might interview 15, 20 people.
[40:26.060 --> 40:27.020]  Some bigger ones, even more.
[40:27.580 --> 40:29.600]  Maybe half of those actually get quoted in print.
[40:30.560 --> 40:35.480]  Just because you didn't get quoted in print doesn't mean that you were...
[40:35.480 --> 40:36.820]  It was a waste of time.
[40:36.960 --> 40:39.520]  Because you probably have helped inform all the other stuff.
[40:39.760 --> 40:44.000]  When a journalist writes facts in their own voice, where do you think those facts came from?
[40:44.080 --> 40:47.280]  The facts came probably because somebody told them what was going on.
[40:48.580 --> 40:50.120]  And, you know, some people get very annoyed.
[40:50.220 --> 40:52.360]  They talk to me for 20 minutes or half an hour.
[40:52.520 --> 40:55.440]  And then, you know, they maybe get, you know, a sentence.
[40:55.740 --> 40:59.560]  Well, because I have responsibility to my readers to only give them the important material.
[40:59.760 --> 41:02.540]  And actually 30 minutes, 20, 30 minutes is about an average length.
[41:02.620 --> 41:03.500]  That's not a lengthy interview.
[41:03.580 --> 41:05.360]  Some people think that's an incredibly lengthy time.
[41:05.520 --> 41:06.280]  It's really not.
[41:07.040 --> 41:08.340]  It's about average for a lot of stuff.
[41:08.800 --> 41:14.140]  And really, out of that, there's probably only going to be about 10, 20 words that are really sharp and pointed.
[41:14.380 --> 41:16.860]  And that, again, are going to be interesting to a reader.
[41:18.160 --> 41:19.820]  Also, stories get spiked all the time.
[41:19.980 --> 41:22.120]  If you don't hear anything that's going on or something...
[41:22.120 --> 41:25.140]  You know, don't ring up and bug the journalist and demand, Why hasn't this appeared?
[41:25.220 --> 41:25.980]  Or why is this?
[41:26.100 --> 41:27.280]  Or why did I waste all this time?
[41:27.540 --> 41:30.840]  You know, it's out of the journalist's control many times, whether or not stories get spiked.
[41:31.240 --> 41:36.480]  Your being annoyed is not going to make the story appear if it's not going to appear, if the decision has been made.
[41:36.880 --> 41:39.160]  What you can do is sometimes you can say...
[41:39.160 --> 41:43.760]  You can let them know if something is timely or if something is going to change.
[41:43.980 --> 41:46.640]  And that might, you know, bring something forward.
[41:48.780 --> 41:50.980]  But that's really about all you can do.
[41:51.060 --> 41:55.580]  So there's no point in bugging the journalist because, you know, either a story appears or it doesn't.
[41:55.640 --> 42:00.880]  You're not going to influence that decision by bugging the journalist.
[42:01.640 --> 42:05.340]  Again, and also at the end of the day, you can't expect that your article is going to advocate your point of view.
[42:05.340 --> 42:08.700]  You talk to a guy for an hour, he seemed incredibly sympathetic and nice on the phone.
[42:09.540 --> 42:12.400]  Well, you know, that's what we all try to be nice and sympathetic on the phone.
[42:12.520 --> 42:18.300]  And then the article comes out and it's like, you know, the conclusion is completely 180 degrees from your position.
[42:18.560 --> 42:19.860]  Well, don't be surprised by that.
[42:20.060 --> 42:27.600]  See, journalists are not your friends, but, you know, we're going to sound an awful lot like them in many ways on the phone because we want to have an amicable conversation.
[42:27.740 --> 42:29.020]  We want to draw you out and so on.
[42:29.140 --> 42:30.240]  But we're reserving judgment.
[42:30.460 --> 42:31.740]  Remember, we're doing that to everybody.
[42:33.620 --> 42:42.080]  You want journalists to be a little skeptical and able to step back from a pleasant conversation and be able to make hard decisions and skeptical decisions about it.
[42:42.560 --> 42:46.580]  What you can expect is that if you're quoting the article to be fairly represented.
[42:46.580 --> 42:54.480]  If the article comes out and the conclusion is not the way you want it, before you get completely mad and fly off the handle, look, did you get your two cents in?
[42:54.960 --> 42:57.580]  Was your, you know, was your side included?
[42:57.780 --> 42:58.760]  Was it freely represented?
[42:59.000 --> 43:01.460]  And if it was, that's sometimes all you can ask for.
[43:01.660 --> 43:17.520]  If, however, things do go wrong, you know, somebody said somebody contacted you and you told them, absolutely not, that never happened that way, and yet the article comes out that, you know, that things happened that particular way, or your quotes are done out of context or things are distorted.
[43:18.080 --> 43:27.720]  Your first step here, and you'll notice a repeating theme as we go down through this slide, is write a polite letter to journalists saying, well, you know, hey, Joe, we had a nice conversation.
[43:27.720 --> 43:30.280]  I was a little surprised by the final output.
[43:30.480 --> 43:35.620]  I really, you know, my notes show that we had talked about it this way, and I'm a little concerned about this.
[43:35.880 --> 43:37.960]  So first letter is very kind of a gentle letter.
[43:38.260 --> 43:42.440]  I mean, maybe it was an honest mistake, but if you're aggressive, they'll get defensive.
[43:42.740 --> 43:44.880]  Maybe it was an honest mistake, and it'll get corrected.
[43:45.360 --> 43:49.900]  If the journalist kind of blows you off and is not paying attention, then the next step is write a polite letter to the editor.
[43:50.020 --> 43:55.300]  Hey, you know, I tried to talk about him, but I haven't heard back from him, and we have this problem, and I can back it up.
[43:55.360 --> 44:00.100]  And oh, by the way, at this stage, you know, you know, if you want, I have a recording of the conversation, by the way.
[44:01.240 --> 44:03.360]  You know, so you're backing up your assertion.
[44:03.440 --> 44:06.740]  If that doesn't work, then you go on to the publisher, and you can write a letter to the publisher.
[44:06.960 --> 44:15.360]  At some point, though, it's often just, it's not worth it pursuing past a certain point, because actually there's no real legal obligation on them to print a correction or so on.
[44:15.480 --> 44:24.360]  You really are, if you're looking for a correction, you really are, you kind of ask them to do it out of the goodness of the heart, because they want to maintain their reputation as a reputable news organization and so on.
[44:24.540 --> 44:32.360]  But, you know, unless they have done something illegal, you know, they've slandered, they've libeled you, you know, you don't have a huge amount of legal redress.
[44:32.480 --> 44:33.620]  They're not compelled to do it.
[44:33.620 --> 44:37.020]  So, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar if something has gone wrong.
[44:38.440 --> 44:39.540]  Gosh, I think that's about it.
[44:39.760 --> 44:41.460]  So, any questions?
[44:41.700 --> 44:47.080]  Also, there's a handout floating around Surma, which has most of these points summarized.
[44:48.540 --> 44:49.180]  Any questions?
[44:49.340 --> 44:52.860]  If you come up to the mic, it's because they made us say you have to come up to the mic.
[44:54.520 --> 44:55.640]  Oh, yeah, sorry.
[44:55.780 --> 44:57.340]  And just before we start, though, I have two.
[44:58.100 --> 45:07.220]  I have a whole bunch of, like, back issues that you guys might be interested in here, and I have two very exciting, just fresh from the embroiderer, hats.
[45:07.680 --> 45:12.780]  So, who can tell me what IEEE 1003 is the standard for?
[45:15.360 --> 45:17.480]  Do you want to know what he has a laptop for Google?
[45:17.560 --> 45:17.820]  Fireware?
[45:18.220 --> 45:19.640]  No, that's 1394.
[45:20.340 --> 45:20.800]  POSIX?
[45:21.220 --> 45:22.240]  POSIX, yes!
[45:23.240 --> 45:24.840]  Oh, the green one or this one?
[45:25.320 --> 45:26.620]  Oh, that's the navy one.
[45:26.800 --> 45:27.200]  Navy one.
[45:27.400 --> 45:30.260]  Okay, and maybe not an easier one.
[45:30.260 --> 45:31.440]  802.3.
[45:33.400 --> 45:34.920]  No, it's 802.11.
[45:35.080 --> 45:36.040]  802.3.
[45:37.180 --> 45:38.100]  Ethernet, yes.
[45:41.060 --> 45:42.480]  Okay, sorry, there was a question.
[45:43.200 --> 45:44.420]  Or has it given up?
[45:44.600 --> 45:44.980]  No?
[45:46.700 --> 45:51.380]  I didn't have a question so much as just a couple of comments, if that's okay.
[45:51.620 --> 45:51.800]  Sure.
[45:52.100 --> 45:55.860]  Just bear in mind this slide here, where I'm not all these people.
[45:57.640 --> 46:05.560]  I would just say, as a journalist, the comment about the food cannot be taken too lightly.
[46:08.560 --> 46:11.060]  Seriously, journalists work hard and they're very hungry.
[46:11.980 --> 46:17.100]  And if you give them food as opposed to not, there's a much better chance they will show up.
[46:17.260 --> 46:21.100]  Remember I said those like four things you have to have, novelty and special characters?
[46:21.420 --> 46:24.620]  Actually, many times all you need is booze and food.
[46:24.680 --> 46:25.900]  And that can be enough.
[46:26.000 --> 46:27.640]  He's not lying people, seriously.
[46:28.500 --> 46:30.820]  I mean, yeah, we're just, yeah, yeah.
[46:31.020 --> 46:38.760]  As the staff photographer for my school's newspaper, I can attest that there's a reason why we're known for having food in our office.
[46:39.780 --> 46:40.720]  Newsmen like food.
[46:40.960 --> 46:41.580]  Yes, yeah.
[46:41.620 --> 46:42.340]  No, it's true.
[46:42.480 --> 46:43.480]  I mean, yeah.
[46:43.760 --> 46:44.940]  You can't argue with that.
[46:46.220 --> 47:08.260]  One of the things, and I'm just offering a little advice here, and that is, if you're going to pitch a reporter on a story and they haven't solicited your input on it, if you're just blind pitching a story, a really good idea is to do a little bit of research on the reporter to find out what they've written about,
[47:08.380 --> 47:19.820]  what their expertise is, and most importantly, whether or not they've covered the subject that you're pitching them on, because you will insult them and they will never talk to you again.
[47:19.980 --> 47:28.400]  If you try to pitch them on something they broke, or something that they've written extensively about, and you approach them like they don't know anything about the issue.
[47:29.580 --> 47:36.640]  The other thing, I guess I would just take a little bit of contention with what you said, and that is that, again, it's an opportunity thing.
[47:36.640 --> 47:52.180]  If you have the opportunity, and you have an exclusive, you are offering a journalist something that is of high news value, it is a really good idea to set the terms of the... and I can't believe I'm saying this because as a journalist...
[47:52.180 --> 47:53.120]  I should have said, I should have said...
[47:53.120 --> 47:53.460]  I actually...
[47:53.460 --> 47:54.440]  You don't want to do that.
[47:54.480 --> 47:55.760]  No, no, you're actually right.
[47:55.920 --> 47:59.580]  I think it may have had a... I think I said weird, don't set weird conditions.
[47:59.920 --> 48:00.360]  Yeah, yeah, yeah, no.
[48:00.460 --> 48:03.380]  But actually, it's okay to set the terms of an interview.
[48:03.500 --> 48:04.060]  I actually agree with you.
[48:04.060 --> 48:10.920]  It's okay to say, I can give you half an hour or I can say, I can really talk about this, but I can't really address such and such and such and such.
[48:10.920 --> 48:16.500]  Or if you want to use a quote of mine, I'd ask if you would just read it back to me or email it back to me or something like that.
[48:16.500 --> 48:18.980]  Yeah, I mean, actually, which goes into source review, which we didn't...
[48:18.980 --> 48:27.500]  which I didn't talk about, but as... a lot of science journalists will do source review, which means you'll get back either just your quotes or maybe a chunk of the article.
[48:27.760 --> 48:31.460]  That's a great opportunity to just, you know, make sure everything is okay.
[48:31.460 --> 48:34.920]  It's not an opportunity to rewrite history, but many of them will do source review.
[48:35.020 --> 48:38.460]  And you can say, you know, I would really appreciate seeing my comments.
[48:39.500 --> 48:46.940]  And if you are... if it's, you know, some of the general guys will balk at this, but actually most guys will probably do it.
[48:46.960 --> 48:47.780]  That's a fair request.
[48:47.900 --> 48:49.280]  It is actually a fair request.
[48:49.300 --> 48:49.960]  You're entitled to that.
[48:49.960 --> 48:50.760]  It's not a weird condition.
[48:50.760 --> 48:54.980]  You save yourself a lot of, like, oh, that's not what I said.
[48:55.080 --> 48:55.300]  Yeah.
[48:55.740 --> 48:56.860]  And you have fewer...
[48:57.340 --> 49:00.800]  I had a bad experience with journalist-type experiences.
[49:01.080 --> 49:10.100]  And the only... a couple of things I would just say, if you're speaking on a topic that you know a lot about and you venture into an area you don't know a lot about, don't say more than you know.
[49:10.100 --> 49:23.840]  And that applies to not just areas of knowledge, but areas of... areas of whatever, whether it be incidental knowledge or what's going on.
[49:24.020 --> 49:38.640]  And then the last thing I would say is, back up your point 100%, I would say I probably spend... I would say about... only about 40% of the stories that I actually spend a lot of time on actually making into print.
[49:38.640 --> 49:38.900]  Yeah.
[49:40.140 --> 49:46.260]  And just because somebody spend a lot of time with you on the phone is no guarantee that they're gonna, you know, make out with you at the end of the night.
[49:46.740 --> 49:47.700]  I mean, it's just...
[49:47.700 --> 49:48.500]  Yeah, I know, that's great.
[49:48.800 --> 49:50.160]  And I'm glad that's your experience, too.
[49:50.260 --> 50:02.120]  I mean, if you search for my name in Google, you will probably feel fine, you know, somebody from the surveillance camera players in New York who was very, very aggrieved that I had talked to him and then his... he didn't appear in the print.
[50:02.240 --> 50:04.920]  Whereas, in fact, that's kind of par for the course, actually.
[50:05.120 --> 50:05.740]  Yeah, that's a lot.
[50:06.260 --> 50:06.440]  Anyway.
[50:07.040 --> 50:07.240]  Okay.
[50:07.240 --> 50:09.060]  Brian Krebs with WashingtonPost.com.
[50:09.280 --> 50:09.660]  Oh, okay.
[50:09.820 --> 50:10.700]  Well, I mean...
[50:11.900 --> 50:13.080]  Any other questions?
[50:14.280 --> 50:14.880]  No?
[50:15.180 --> 50:15.440]  Bueller?
[50:15.620 --> 50:15.880]  Bueller?
[50:16.720 --> 50:17.260]  Oh, yay.
[50:17.760 --> 50:18.060]  Yeah.
[50:18.740 --> 50:33.320]  So, I'm not sure how often this happens, but what should you do if you do get a journalist who has decided that he or she is actually going to spin something against you?
[50:34.280 --> 50:38.520]  Again, it's a matter of, well, you know, you always have the option not to talk to a journalist.
[50:38.800 --> 50:39.280]  I mean, that's the...
[50:39.280 --> 50:40.860]  If you are, like, looking...
[50:40.860 --> 50:43.640]  When the journalist first contacts you and you...
[50:43.640 --> 50:46.420]  Again, it's always a good idea to research that journalist a little bit.
[50:46.480 --> 50:51.780]  And if you've seen all this other stuff, it's just, you know, very slanted in a way that you don't like.
[50:51.780 --> 50:55.160]  Well, then, you know, make an excuse and don't talk to that particular journalist.
[50:55.300 --> 51:04.400]  If you've already talked to them and they seem to be really distorting what you've said, again, that's where it's really useful to have taken notes during any interview you've done.
[51:04.520 --> 51:05.220]  Ideally, record them.
[51:05.360 --> 51:09.500]  Because then that's something you can go to their superiors and say, Look, they said X, Y, and Z.
[51:09.580 --> 51:12.300]  And if you listen to the full conversation, it's clearly out of context.
[51:12.640 --> 51:16.040]  You know, even if you don't have a recording, you know, it's just have notes.
[51:16.040 --> 51:26.240]  I mean, contemporary notes written down that you can, you know, bring in and present, or you can, you know, photocopy and send a letter to their editor, is, you know, something that editors will take seriously.
[51:26.480 --> 51:38.700]  And again, at the end of the day, you know, you might want to, you know, consider how much of your time and energy you want to, because sometimes it's best just to let bad publicity just drift off into the sunset and be forgotten about it.
[51:40.760 --> 51:45.420]  You know, if you think someone is not going to do you a good job ahead of time, don't talk to them.
[51:45.580 --> 51:55.360]  If they've screwed you sort of post-hack, well, then, you know, again, write these letters and try and back it up if you can in some way.
[51:56.960 --> 51:57.860]  Okay, thanks.
[51:58.140 --> 51:58.340]  Okay.
[52:01.040 --> 52:01.980]  Anybody else anymore?
[52:02.160 --> 52:04.480]  Anybody else want to know dark secrets from the mainstream media?
[52:05.140 --> 52:05.820]  Nope, we got one more.
[52:07.440 --> 52:08.900]  I think we've got about five minutes left.
[52:09.540 --> 52:09.940]  Hello.
[52:10.240 --> 52:10.520]  Hi.
[52:10.700 --> 52:14.340]  I just have one thing to say, and that's use encryption.
[52:15.320 --> 52:15.760]  Use encryption.
[52:15.760 --> 52:16.420]  Use encryption.
[52:16.960 --> 52:21.300]  You know, people can't subpoena what they can't read, and, you know, I...
[52:21.300 --> 52:23.940]  The problem is most journalists don't know how to use encryption.
[52:24.160 --> 52:27.660]  I mean, and this is not necessarily a ding on...
[52:27.660 --> 52:37.400]  Well, actually, there are many issues with encryption, and actually, you know, encryption is nice, but a federal shield law would be much better.
[52:38.160 --> 52:41.940]  And the fact is that a lot of journalists are not going to, A, be able to handle encryption.
[52:41.940 --> 52:46.460]  Those who do, you're still leaving a trail because, you know, who would journalists talk to?
[52:46.560 --> 52:48.300]  And this, we've seen this in recent issues.
[52:48.620 --> 52:53.640]  Just the mere fact that a journalist talked to somebody can be enough.
[52:53.780 --> 52:56.280]  You don't even need to know any of the content of the conversation.
[52:56.360 --> 53:04.640]  But just knowing that contact was made between person A and a journalist can often be more than enough to get people into deep, deep, deep trouble.
[53:04.640 --> 53:07.080]  That's fair, but it leaves reasonable doubt.
[53:08.860 --> 53:10.640]  Well, yes, you know, but enough.
[53:10.880 --> 53:13.480]  But, like, you know, there's the law, and then there's getting fired.
[53:13.960 --> 53:15.940]  You know, and that, you know.
[53:16.340 --> 53:22.080]  So you can, a lot of things can happen to you that don't have to happen, you know, prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
[53:22.240 --> 53:26.180]  If you are weary about talking to journalists, I would say, you know, set up a fake account.
[53:26.180 --> 53:30.220]  You know, set up a, you know, a pop sock puppet account and deal with them that way.
[53:30.580 --> 53:32.500]  Meet with them somewhere, you know.
[53:32.700 --> 53:39.600]  I mean, don't leave, I mean, don't leave a trail, an electronic trail if you're really, really, really worried about that.
[53:39.740 --> 53:43.400]  Say, you know, send from fake, I would like to meet with you in such and such a place.
[53:43.480 --> 53:44.220]  And journalists love that.
[53:44.300 --> 53:47.320]  Because then, you know, they're going out and doing the deep throat investigative stuff.
[53:47.500 --> 53:48.960]  And that's cool, you know.
[53:50.380 --> 53:52.980]  But, you know, I mean, don't get a nasty cloak and dagger.
[53:52.980 --> 53:57.560]  Most things, if you send, if you send a big encrypted thing, they're just going to, how the hell do I do with this?
[53:57.660 --> 54:03.120]  And you've got to hope that their, you know, mail software supports PGP or GPG or whatever it is you happen to encrypt it in.
[54:03.240 --> 54:06.060]  And it can be, you know, very complicated.
[54:07.800 --> 54:08.440]  Anybody else?
[54:09.400 --> 54:10.720]  And I've been told to stop.
[54:10.940 --> 54:12.880]  So, well, thank you all very, very much for listening.
[54:15.820 --> 54:19.340]  Oh, and there are, there are issues up front if you want to, if you want to grab some.