[00:03.120 --> 00:10.500]  Our next exciting talk, entitled, How to Talk to the Press.
[00:10.860 --> 00:13.520]  And Stephen Cass, welcome.
[00:15.860 --> 00:18.310]  Hi, well, I'm glad to see so many of you here.
[00:18.480 --> 00:31.320]  There's about, I'd say, 10 times 100 people who came to this talk when I first gave it the last Hacker Conference, H2K2, because I did, it was one of those third-track conferences, and I had, I think, about, like, four people.
[00:31.320 --> 00:33.120]  So it's nice to see more people here.
[00:33.340 --> 00:41.240]  The reason why I did the talk was because, in the course of my work, I end up talking to a lot of people about a lot of technical subjects.
[00:41.540 --> 00:44.930]  And even also a lot of policy subjects, a lot of business subjects.
[00:45.220 --> 00:48.800]  And people tend to make the same errors over and over again.
[00:49.360 --> 01:05.260]  And they really could make a much better fist of getting their point across, getting it into print, which is what I do, or into broadcasts, which other people do, if they understood maybe a few of the rules and understood some of the expectations of what journalists do and how stories get formed,
[01:06.020 --> 01:07.080]  and so on.
[01:07.160 --> 01:19.320]  So I write for IEEE Spectrum Magazine, which is the flagship publication of the IEEE, who do a lot of standards work, who do a lot of just regular sort of engineering publication work.
[01:19.320 --> 01:30.200]  And it's a pretty good place to work for, because as a non-profit, we can, and as an international non-profit, our internal organization often has many different views.
[01:30.200 --> 01:32.020]  We're not locked into one corporate view.
[01:32.240 --> 01:37.040]  We often have a lot of people who really do care deeply about making the world a better place to technology.
[01:37.040 --> 01:39.200]  So I found it a good place to work.
[01:39.320 --> 01:51.320]  Our current issue is this one, Censor Nation, which has a nice story about Werner Winge, about what it's like, ultimately, to live in a completely surveillance society, where everybody has got sensors alone themselves.
[01:52.020 --> 01:54.400]  Everybody's experience of reality is mediated.
[01:54.560 --> 01:57.140]  So if anybody wants a copy of that, I have a few up here.
[01:57.840 --> 02:00.280]  So, of course, I'm here to tell you that journalists are your friends.
[02:00.740 --> 02:04.500]  When, well, we all know that the fact, the truth is that we're not your friends.
[02:05.150 --> 02:10.180]  Many times... How many people here have seen the movie Almost Famous?
[02:11.180 --> 02:11.580]  Okay.
[02:11.900 --> 02:13.480]  What do they call the press in that movie?
[02:15.800 --> 02:16.440]  The enemy.
[02:16.680 --> 02:17.100]  That's right.
[02:17.180 --> 02:18.940]  They always refer to it as the enemy.
[02:19.140 --> 02:26.240]  And when people forgot that the press was supposed to be the enemy, that's where people started getting hurt and feeling betrayed, and there was all this back and forth.
[02:27.000 --> 02:28.200]  Journalists are not your friends.
[02:28.400 --> 02:37.440]  When a journalist comes to you, they may be very nice, they may be very charming, they may be very pleasant, they may be a pain in the ass, whatever it is, but they have a very specific agenda.
[02:37.660 --> 02:41.600]  They want to be able to write a story that will interest their readers.
[02:42.460 --> 02:44.720]  And a story means very specific things.
[02:45.020 --> 02:50.060]  They're not there as scholars, they're not writing academic histories, they're not there to write your biography.
[02:50.500 --> 02:54.320]  They're not even there necessarily to be activists and take up your cause that you tell them.
[02:54.480 --> 02:57.720]  They're looking for a nice story that they can tell.
[02:57.940 --> 02:59.640]  Stories often tend to have narratives.
[02:59.640 --> 03:03.820]  So there may be a hundred things that are technically interesting.
[03:04.140 --> 03:10.580]  They are really looking for something that they can put up into a nice little package that is a beginning, a middle, and an end, and has nice characters.
[03:11.140 --> 03:13.120]  A lot of stories don't fit that mold.
[03:13.760 --> 03:16.400]  Well, a lot of things in the real world don't fit that mold.
[03:16.700 --> 03:22.760]  You really need, when you're talking to a journalist, to try and think, you know, am I giving a story here?
[03:22.760 --> 03:24.040]  Am I telling things of a story?
[03:24.200 --> 03:28.600]  Or am I just basically telling the kind of stuff that's more appropriate to a textbook?
[03:28.880 --> 03:32.300]  Or a chapter, you know, in some academic report?
[03:32.760 --> 03:35.040]  Generally speaking, journalists are looking for a story.
[03:35.200 --> 03:40.660]  If you can help them find the story, you will go very much to the top of their list of things that they're going to write about.
[03:41.640 --> 03:44.340]  The other point about this, again, is expectations.
[03:45.120 --> 03:57.540]  I've talked to people, I've rung them up, I've talked to them for 15, 30 minutes, which is about the normal time you talk to somebody like this, and they come back, and they're very annoyed to find, well, you know, either they weren't in the article at all,
[03:58.060 --> 03:59.960]  or they were only quoted for a couple of lines.
[04:01.380 --> 04:04.700]  Most of the time, the point of the interview is not about you.
[04:05.420 --> 04:08.240]  Journalists talk to you for two reasons, usually.
[04:08.640 --> 04:11.640]  One is they're looking for a quote, a reaction, a comment.
[04:11.860 --> 04:15.960]  This usually only applies if you're in an organization which is reacting to something.
[04:16.150 --> 04:21.020]  So it happens a journalist will call you up, some event has happened, the journalist will call you up for a reaction.
[04:21.210 --> 04:24.650]  And you give a couple of lines, and those lines usually pretty much appear verbatim.
[04:25.020 --> 04:34.590]  And that generally, though, only happens, as I say, with large organizations who are already involved in an ongoing, usually mature story, where they really just do want the couple of little lines, the quick response.
[04:35.120 --> 04:41.700]  Most of the time, and I suspect most of the people in this audience are being interviewed, the journalist is not looking for that.
[04:41.790 --> 04:44.120]  What they're looking for is help understanding a topic.
[04:44.230 --> 04:45.260]  They're doing research.
[04:45.260 --> 04:52.260]  So the more you can help them understand a topic, the better, even if, you know, your words don't appear necessarily in print.
[04:52.440 --> 05:06.960]  When you look at a news story or a feature story, and you see all these particular facts that are mentioned in the story, little nuggets of information or anecdotes that are not necessarily attributed to anybody, chances are the journalist got that because somebody told them.
[05:07.470 --> 05:10.680]  But yet, not everybody is quoted, not everybody is attributed.
[05:10.680 --> 05:19.470]  Generally speaking, they're only going to want, you know, the handful of quotes that are really interesting, that really pick out a detail in a story.
[05:19.710 --> 05:24.730]  The reason for this is because journalists are supposed to be loyal to their readers before their sources.
[05:25.150 --> 05:28.200]  And again, this comes back to the point, journalists are not your friends.
[05:28.540 --> 05:29.720]  They're not supposed to be.
[05:29.880 --> 05:37.600]  If a journalist is your friend over being, over, over, you know, loyalty, if a journalist has loyalty to you over loyalty to their reader, that's not a journalist worth reading.
[05:38.880 --> 05:40.540]  They're not supposed to be your friends.
[05:40.790 --> 05:45.600]  When they do cross that line, when they, when you start, then that's when you start hearing stories about, you know, bad journalists.
[05:45.790 --> 05:49.840]  Oh, they wouldn't write something about that person because they know that person and they're a friend of that person.
[05:49.980 --> 05:54.540]  And that's when you, as a third person, as a reader, you get annoyed about that, that journalist.
[05:54.840 --> 06:01.230]  Yet, the fact remains is when you're a source and that happens, you don't see anything wrong with it and you, in fact, you kind of expect it because he's your friend and so on.
[06:01.230 --> 06:02.600]  That's not the point.
[06:02.720 --> 06:04.420]  Journalists are not supposed to be loyal to you.
[06:04.540 --> 06:06.220]  They're supposed to be loyal to the readers.
[06:06.440 --> 06:10.020]  They're also loyal to another group, and that's their organization.
[06:11.020 --> 06:13.620]  And this is why there are problems in media consolidation.
[06:13.880 --> 06:18.680]  It is unfair to expect journalists to write stuff that are going to get themselves fired.
[06:18.700 --> 06:19.850]  It just doesn't happen.
[06:20.620 --> 06:24.400]  And expecting that a journalist is going to do that is an unrealistic expectation.
[06:24.620 --> 06:29.580]  That's why it's important to have lots of voices in the media, because everybody has a blind spot.
[06:29.580 --> 06:31.020]  Their blind spot is their own organization.
[06:31.280 --> 06:32.400]  I work for the IEEE.
[06:32.660 --> 06:36.290]  What are the chances that I'm going to write an article that says technology is bad?
[06:37.480 --> 06:38.660]  Very, very, very slim.
[06:39.640 --> 06:40.940]  Now, I happen to like technology.
[06:40.940 --> 06:42.120]  I personally think it's a good thing.
[06:42.200 --> 06:51.900]  But even if I didn't, because I'm writing for the IEEE, they're not going to be too thrilled if I start, you know, writing articles that say electrical technology is evil and we shouldn't use it.
[06:51.940 --> 06:53.640]  We should all go back to, you know, plowing farms.
[06:53.730 --> 06:55.460]  I'm not going to last very long in that particular job.
[06:55.680 --> 06:57.160]  Every journalist has a blind spot.
[06:57.180 --> 06:58.160]  It's their own organization.
[06:58.160 --> 07:00.840]  You should be aware of that when they're talking to them.
[07:00.980 --> 07:07.350]  And all of this comes back to the main point of this article, which is you need to tailor what you're saying to the person you're talking to.
[07:07.520 --> 07:11.840]  And also to the person that they will be talking to, ultimately to their audience.
[07:12.800 --> 07:14.500]  So why should you bother talking to us?
[07:14.580 --> 07:17.120]  What I've, you know, declaimed is really a whole bunch of schmucks.
[07:17.440 --> 07:27.350]  People who will listen to you, who will betray you, they'll get your trust, they'll apparently betray you, they'll write articles, which, you know, have various, you know, non-objective blind spots.
[07:28.040 --> 07:28.730]  Why bother?
[07:30.060 --> 07:33.400]  Well, the press is a really good way of getting your message out to a lot of people.
[07:34.560 --> 07:35.460]  And that's why.
[07:35.460 --> 07:38.760]  That's why we get, that's why press people get privileges at even this conference.
[07:38.920 --> 07:40.290]  That's why they get free entry.
[07:40.400 --> 07:41.400]  That's why they get nice seats.
[07:41.400 --> 07:47.350]  Because the idea is that through a journalist, you can reach a much wider audience than you could talking alone.
[07:47.350 --> 07:49.850]  And through a journalist, you reach a different audience.
[07:50.160 --> 07:51.560]  Many people say, well, it's the Internet.
[07:51.560 --> 07:51.980]  It's great.
[07:52.080 --> 07:53.080]  We have listservs.
[07:53.180 --> 07:54.520]  We have web pages.
[07:54.730 --> 07:56.080]  We can reach people that way.
[07:56.280 --> 07:57.180]  Well, no.
[07:57.290 --> 07:59.460]  Because unless people then have to come to you.
[07:59.880 --> 08:03.380]  Most journalists are working for systems that are basically push systems.
[08:03.730 --> 08:04.720]  I write a magazine.
[08:04.720 --> 08:07.120]  It goes out to 380,000 people worldwide.
[08:07.380 --> 08:10.320]  People who would not necessarily even know about your website to go to.
[08:10.500 --> 08:12.920]  So that's why it's worthwhile talking to people.
[08:13.480 --> 08:17.200]  I should also say that, you know, a lot of bad things are said about the media.
[08:17.350 --> 08:18.400]  A lot of it justified.
[08:18.900 --> 08:20.580]  But don't think of the media as a monolith.
[08:20.980 --> 08:24.580]  There tends to be a situation whereby people say, the media.
[08:25.200 --> 08:32.900]  And then the image that pops into people's head is just some bizarre amalgam of Rupert Murdoch, and CNN, and cable news, and all this kind of stuff.
[08:33.160 --> 08:38.200]  There are many media outlets, even some of the mainstream, that you can get a fair shake in.
[08:38.340 --> 08:42.800]  A good example of this, which always surprises people until they really read it, is the Wall Street Journal.
[08:43.200 --> 08:53.180]  A lot of people... now, the Wall Street Journal is very... if you look at the op-ed pages, you might go, oh my, this is more ideologically driven than say, you know, Fox News or something like that.
[08:53.260 --> 08:57.020]  If you look at the op-ed pages, which is where a lot of people will do to get the tone of a magazine.
[08:57.360 --> 09:05.460]  But if you actually read the journalism that goes into the rest of that paper, I have to say honestly, it's some of the most insightful and balanced reporting around.
[09:05.960 --> 09:14.720]  It really is worth... so there's an example of an organization where you hear Wall Street Journal, and you have a certain image of them, but actually their reporters are really good reporters.
[09:14.860 --> 09:16.680]  Their editors are really good editors.
[09:16.940 --> 09:23.500]  They often do surprisingly balanced stories, surprisingly insightful stories, but it's not in a venue you would expect.
[09:23.780 --> 09:31.440]  So even if you think the journalist is a schmuck, even if you think they're working for a schmucky organization, it's still often worth your while to talk to them.
[09:32.780 --> 09:36.680]  There are also different types of journalists that you should be aware of in terms of who is worth talking to.
[09:37.380 --> 09:39.980]  There are beat journalists and there are general journalists.
[09:42.560 --> 09:45.460]  General journalists will often be, you know, your people working your daily newspaper.
[09:45.640 --> 09:47.760]  They may not know an awful lot about a particular subject.
[09:48.160 --> 09:53.640]  They might cover, you know, yesterday they might have been covering, you know, Mayor Bloomberg cigarette ban or something like that.
[09:53.740 --> 09:55.740]  And today they're covering, you know, some technical event.
[09:56.120 --> 10:00.540]  They often require a little bit more hand-held but, again, they do get to a general audience.
[10:01.060 --> 10:03.680]  The other types of journalists are beat journalists.
[10:04.100 --> 10:08.380]  You know, these are often people who try to specialize in an area and get involved in stuff.
[10:08.500 --> 10:11.920]  But, again, they often tend to write for more specialized publications themselves.
[10:13.720 --> 10:18.740]  One of the questions that people asked me the last time that I did this was, how do you get a journalist's attention?
[10:20.040 --> 10:21.880]  First off, never send an email.
[10:21.880 --> 10:25.680]  I get, you know, 20 or 30 press releases a day.
[10:26.020 --> 10:31.100]  And that's including, you know, plus the ones that I've actually subscribed to and then I actually want to get the press releases.
[10:31.700 --> 10:34.320]  You know, it just never hits a noise filter.
[10:34.440 --> 10:39.500]  In fact, most of the time, you know, my mail filters will just filter it out as junk and I don't even see it.
[10:40.360 --> 10:41.440]  Don't send a press release.
[10:41.620 --> 10:45.640]  Your best thing to do if you want to get a journalist's attention is to snail mail a letter.
[10:46.180 --> 10:48.100]  And this actually involves you doing research.
[10:48.100 --> 10:59.120]  If you have a point of view you want to get across or an event or you're annoyed about something and you think something has gone terribly wrong and you want to bring someone's attention to it, do a little bit of research.
[10:59.360 --> 11:03.760]  Have a look at, you know, what organizations cover that.
[11:03.880 --> 11:09.660]  And then go and use their, go to their websites, a little bit of searching, find out what people cover that.
[11:09.740 --> 11:12.280]  And then write a letter to that particular journalist.
[11:12.520 --> 11:17.420]  You know, dear Jim Bloggs, I noticed your story on, you know, grid computing or whatever it happens to be.
[11:17.540 --> 11:20.960]  You might also be interested in this and here's an included press release.
[11:22.020 --> 11:28.480]  So really, and I get so few physical letters that when I get a physical letter, first off, it's persistent, it sits on my desk.
[11:28.720 --> 11:33.280]  That letter gets so much more attention than any kind of email would get.
[11:33.420 --> 11:37.280]  Email really is, unsolicited email is really dead.
[11:37.540 --> 11:37.620]  Sorry.
[11:37.700 --> 11:38.400]  What about fax?
[11:38.860 --> 11:39.980]  Fax is awful.
[11:40.140 --> 11:41.320]  Slightly better than an email.
[11:41.640 --> 11:42.560]  Slightly better than an email.
[11:42.880 --> 11:44.400]  But again, I get a whole bunch of faxes.
[11:44.620 --> 11:47.760]  And I sit there and I go to my, you know, pigeon holes.
[11:47.940 --> 11:50.320]  And I pull out my mail and most of it is crap.
[11:50.680 --> 11:53.740]  And I pull it out and I got a whole bunch of faxes on crappy fax paper.
[11:54.280 --> 11:57.180]  And, you know, I look at it and I very quickly make a decision.
[11:57.320 --> 12:03.100]  If you write a letter, you know, address to the person, they will guaranteed sit through and read the whole thing.
[12:03.240 --> 12:07.000]  Whereas if I get something that looks like a press release, I will usually skim the first couple of lines.
[12:07.400 --> 12:08.040]  And that's it.
[12:08.040 --> 12:11.240]  And then my decision is made often just literally within five seconds.
[12:11.420 --> 12:14.560]  But if I get a letter, I generally read the whole thing right down to the yours sincerely.
[12:16.460 --> 12:20.660]  The other thing you should do when you do send a press release is make sure you have contact details.
[12:20.820 --> 12:22.420]  It's really nice if you do have a website.
[12:22.980 --> 12:28.800]  As I mentioned on the handout, if you have high quality, high resolution photographs on that website, that's great.
[12:29.120 --> 12:33.080]  Because oftentimes when deadlines are approaching, the art director needs some copy and they need a photograph.
[12:33.080 --> 12:35.720]  And it's great if they have your photograph to use.
[12:36.040 --> 12:41.220]  Because, well, first off, they're definitely going to contact you so you know they're covering your subject.
[12:41.420 --> 12:42.580]  And then secondly, it's your photograph.
[12:42.740 --> 12:45.680]  So you've gotten your choice of viewfinder across.
[12:46.020 --> 12:48.180]  These photographs should not just be high resolution.
[12:48.460 --> 12:51.760]  When I first said this, I said people need, you know, good photographs.
[12:51.920 --> 12:55.480]  And that doesn't just mean, you know, 300 dots per inch image.
[12:55.620 --> 12:58.140]  That actually means good photographs.
[12:58.440 --> 13:06.600]  And not everybody who can operate a digital camera and knows all the sub-menus and, you know, how to hook it up and turn to webcam is a good photographer.
[13:07.460 --> 13:15.680]  You know, you really, if you're going to, if you're seriously going to start a publicity campaign, find someone who really does good photography work.
[13:15.680 --> 13:19.980]  Maybe it's a student, you know, a friend who's actually doing it in college or something like that.
[13:20.060 --> 13:22.460]  And get them to do your photographs for you.
[13:23.320 --> 13:28.240]  Because, you know, if it's got like a big flash and red eyes or it's washed out, it can't be used.
[13:28.440 --> 13:35.900]  But if you give, if you can give a news organization something that they can use and that's relevant to them, they'll be more than happy to use it.
[13:35.980 --> 13:37.640]  And that picture's worth a thousand words.
[13:43.340 --> 13:52.900]  Again, also another thing that journalists are interested in is to really try to help them put a big, you know, what's the hook?
[13:53.020 --> 13:53.860]  What's the big picture?
[13:54.280 --> 13:59.760]  You know, if you could write up and you could tell them, well, we're having this big protest against, you know, the DCMA.
[14:00.440 --> 14:02.540]  Or we're having this big protest to Free Kevin.
[14:02.700 --> 14:05.040]  Well, you've got to tell them a little bit more than that.
[14:05.300 --> 14:06.440]  Why is it important?
[14:06.880 --> 14:14.140]  And if you can, although this is often a lot of work, you might want to do this in the letter instead of the press release, tailor it specifically to their organization.
[14:14.380 --> 14:22.220]  If they're somebody writing for the Wall Street Journal, you might want to emphasize, well, we're protesting against software patents because we think software patents retired innovation.
[14:22.620 --> 14:26.500]  And it means we lose out to the Europeans because they've decided not to do software patents.
[14:27.500 --> 14:29.580]  And, you know, this is going to be a problem for us.
[14:29.700 --> 14:30.980]  That's a good thing to talk to them.
[14:31.100 --> 14:38.780]  If you're talking to another organization, another newspaper, you know, Village Voice or something, maybe in that letter then you stress, well, this is about First Amendment rights.
[14:39.080 --> 14:43.940]  This is going to take away this particular law, this particular legislation, it's going to take away some of our freedom of expression.
[14:44.420 --> 14:47.120]  Give them the big picture because they're not going to understand it.
[14:47.120 --> 14:50.860]  If they're a big reporter, they might be able to connect the dots.
[14:51.040 --> 14:52.600]  But you can't assume they're going to do that.
[14:52.780 --> 14:54.280]  You need to give them a context.
[14:54.460 --> 15:04.640]  You need to tell them, for some reason, why they should come and cover your story and not the 20 other news releases that they've gotten that day or the other, you know, stories that are clowering for attention.
[15:04.880 --> 15:06.620]  And this is really a pressing problem now.
[15:07.460 --> 15:14.720]  The last couple of years have been really bad years for certainly the print industry, I think, probably general broadcasting as well.
[15:14.960 --> 15:19.140]  My magazine has gone down from 80 pages of editorial to 40 pages of editorial.
[15:19.460 --> 15:23.380]  So the competition to get a story in one of those pages has effectively doubled.
[15:23.840 --> 15:25.420]  You know, it's really tough to get in.
[15:25.480 --> 15:26.560]  And that's across the board.
[15:26.740 --> 15:30.060]  So, you know, you are competing against a lot of people.
[15:30.160 --> 15:31.220]  You have to tell them.
[15:31.380 --> 15:32.780]  Don't think they're just going to know.
[15:32.960 --> 15:39.200]  You have to tell them why they're covering your story as well as the details of your particular story.
[15:41.280 --> 15:49.260]  When it comes time to actually, you know, you've got the journalist's attention or maybe something has happened and they have called you out of the blue, which sometimes happens.
[15:50.240 --> 15:51.520]  You should prepare for the interview.
[15:51.920 --> 15:52.100]  Again.
[15:52.260 --> 15:54.720]  Make sure you know who the journalist is working for and what's their audience.
[15:55.800 --> 15:57.040]  You know, are they a beat reporter?
[15:57.220 --> 15:57.680]  Are they a gender reporter?
[15:57.760 --> 16:04.480]  Are they writing for, you know, Wired magazine or are they writing for Newsweek or are they writing for the local zine down the shops?
[16:04.540 --> 16:06.760]  Or you're writing for, you know, the Springfield Community Shopper?
[16:07.280 --> 16:12.620]  Find out because that's going to, that should affect how you deliver your particular message.
[16:13.140 --> 16:14.960]  Take your thoughts before an interview.
[16:15.080 --> 16:24.800]  When I call someone up, unless it's like a press flack or someone who's really experienced or someone I know and I've dealt with before, I'm always really surprised when they just want to launch straight into the interview.
[16:24.900 --> 16:26.060]  Because I never do that.
[16:26.200 --> 16:28.420]  And most, I think, nobody else that I know does that.
[16:28.600 --> 16:30.740]  I call somebody up to make an appointment for an interview.
[16:30.980 --> 16:35.500]  Because I like it when they've had a little bit of time to think about a subject and they've prepared questions.
[16:35.660 --> 16:37.380]  However, some people just want to launch into an interview.
[16:37.780 --> 16:38.580]  Don't do that.
[16:38.820 --> 16:49.640]  Because sometimes, especially if they have a specific idea of what they want to extract from you, like they have a much more... Sometimes you come into a story, you say, well, I want to get this kind of quote from this person.
[16:49.740 --> 16:51.240]  I want to get that kind of quote from that person.
[16:51.580 --> 16:55.220]  And if they're not really engaged with the subject, maybe they've got the wrong ideas.
[16:55.820 --> 16:58.460]  And maybe they want to extract from you a quote that's damaging.
[16:58.760 --> 17:02.980]  Or a quote that feeds into a stereotype that you don't necessarily want to perpetuate.
[17:03.320 --> 17:06.060]  What you should do is you should say, well, I'm really busy right now.
[17:06.100 --> 17:07.480]  Or I've got to do this one thing.
[17:07.600 --> 17:08.660]  Could we talk tomorrow?
[17:08.660 --> 17:10.140]  Tomorrow could we talk in ten minutes' time?
[17:10.440 --> 17:11.320]  Ask for their phone number.
[17:11.380 --> 17:13.360]  Tell you what, I'll call you back in ten minutes after I finish that.
[17:13.560 --> 17:14.640]  Well, that encompasses two things.
[17:14.740 --> 17:16.980]  One, it gives you a little bit of time to talk, and now you've got their phone number.
[17:17.860 --> 17:20.800]  So you can always call them back a little bit later, if you really have to.
[17:21.260 --> 17:30.380]  What you should do then, in that little bit of time you've taken, again, pick a time that's convenient to you, unless you're like really, that's a really on deadline, or you're really experienced, then you can fudge this.
[17:30.860 --> 17:33.180]  You sit down and you think of your spiel.
[17:34.240 --> 17:36.100]  You know, what is it you want to get across?
[17:36.100 --> 17:40.460]  You're only going to have time, really, even in a thirty minute interview, which you might think is a long time, but it's not.
[17:40.740 --> 17:42.580]  You're really only going to get a few points across.
[17:43.000 --> 17:45.160]  Do you have any explanations that you need to make?
[17:45.240 --> 17:46.720]  Are you talking about something technical?
[17:46.860 --> 17:48.000]  Are you talking about the latest hack?
[17:48.580 --> 17:51.740]  Or the latest security exploit in, you know, Internet Explorer?
[17:52.000 --> 17:53.300]  Well, how does that actually work?
[17:53.380 --> 17:56.980]  And programmers tend to think in very abstract terms.
[17:57.440 --> 17:59.960]  You need to work out some very concrete analogies.
[18:00.240 --> 18:03.760]  Because, and if you can do that, that's a real help to the journalist.
[18:03.760 --> 18:06.620]  Because what you're really trying to do at this stage is educate the journalist.
[18:06.940 --> 18:10.100]  You're trying to help them in the research so they can write a nice story.
[18:10.240 --> 18:14.760]  And if you do that, not only does it lead to a better story, but you get known as somebody who's good.
[18:15.020 --> 18:16.940]  Who's a good, you know, who's a good explainer.
[18:16.980 --> 18:18.980]  Somebody who you can go back to later.
[18:19.580 --> 18:24.320]  I mean, people always say, you know, Carl Sagan, for instance, used to get an awful lot of grief in the astronomy community.
[18:24.560 --> 18:26.280]  And Feynman used to do in the physics community.
[18:26.500 --> 18:27.580]  And Gould and other places.
[18:27.580 --> 18:30.980]  Because journalists would ring them up and would ask for their opinions on things.
[18:31.880 --> 18:36.920]  You know, why would you call Carl Sagan to talk about, you know, just any science topic?
[18:37.060 --> 18:38.680]  They would ring him up and they would ask him stuff.
[18:39.040 --> 18:40.220]  And other scientists would get annoyed.
[18:40.500 --> 18:42.440]  You know, Carl Sagan is not a universal expert.
[18:42.860 --> 18:47.540]  You know, why does he, why do I, every time I read a science paper, does Carl Sagan opinion matter?
[18:48.140 --> 18:53.160]  Well, the reason Carl Sagan got to that point was because Carl Sagan really thought he knew how to explain things.
[18:53.160 --> 18:58.740]  And so, when journalists were faced with a difficult topic to understand, they knew they could ring up Carl.
[18:59.220 --> 19:03.320]  And Carl would give them a nice little sound bite that they could then use to explain the topic.
[19:03.840 --> 19:11.700]  If you can get to that level where you need, where you can really explain something, it's really about teaching something to somebody who is not necessarily an expert in your field.
[19:12.340 --> 19:14.360]  You could, you've really managed to do something.
[19:15.040 --> 19:16.340]  You know, I'm a beat reporter.
[19:16.460 --> 19:17.740]  I cover computers in space.
[19:18.000 --> 19:21.060]  I like to think I know a reasonable amount of topics.
[19:21.060 --> 19:24.600]  But you still would never in a million years ask me, you know, to write a compiler.
[19:25.120 --> 19:27.640]  I'm still going to need help understanding certain things.
[19:27.800 --> 19:29.140]  Even though I know what a compiler does.
[19:29.400 --> 19:33.160]  Even though, you know, I'm known to write a script every now and then to this day.
[19:33.380 --> 19:36.980]  I'm still going to need a lot of help understanding all these very technical details.
[19:37.200 --> 19:43.600]  So, what you need to do is really think, how am I going to explain this to someone who's reasonably literate, but who's not really into the internals.
[19:44.540 --> 19:47.600]  You also should set out, establish your conditions before you turn.
[19:47.860 --> 19:49.120]  Do you have any time constraints?
[19:49.420 --> 19:51.080]  Does the journalist have any time constraints?
[19:51.300 --> 19:52.720]  Is there anything you're not going to talk about?
[19:53.940 --> 19:55.580]  Don't be weird with your conditions, though.
[19:55.760 --> 19:58.300]  Don't do, don't do, I hate to say it, don't do a Stallman.
[19:58.540 --> 20:03.680]  You know, Stallman's famous for saying, if you want to deal with him, you've got to use, you know, GNU, Linux, and all this kind of stuff like this.
[20:04.220 --> 20:06.240]  And you can get a certain amount of interview out of him without that.
[20:06.380 --> 20:07.720]  But, you know, anything kind of depth.
[20:07.860 --> 20:10.100]  And he, you know, he does, he starts putting in these conditions.
[20:10.700 --> 20:12.940]  The reaction to that, well, there are three types of journalists.
[20:13.340 --> 20:18.940]  Those who understand the whole GNU, Linux thing, and agree with him, and so they were going to do it anyway.
[20:19.360 --> 20:24.840]  Those who understand and disagree with him, in which case no man of argument is going to convince them to say that they should call it GNU, Linux.
[20:25.180 --> 20:33.000]  And those who don't know what the hell is going on, and think this is weird, and don't want to get into it, because they don't want, they get very wary of it, because now they're being asked to write about stuff they don't fully understand.
[20:33.000 --> 20:38.200]  So, you notice he doesn't get a huge amount of press, and that's why, because he tends to set up some conditions.
[20:38.340 --> 20:41.380]  Now, I could be wrong, but that's the impression that our people have given me.
[20:41.540 --> 20:50.060]  So, don't just get, don't do weird sort of conditions, like you're only going to talk about stuff, or, you know, you can't use the word hacker in a bad way, you know, and so on.
[20:50.380 --> 20:54.420]  You've really just got to, by yourself, get across the idea that you're trying to do.
[20:55.340 --> 20:57.340]  During the interview, assume you're being recorded.
[20:58.280 --> 21:00.800]  You know, state law varies from place to place.
[21:00.800 --> 21:07.220]  In New York State, for example, it's perfectly legal to record if one person knows that the recording is being done.
[21:07.660 --> 21:09.540]  You might want to record the conversation yourself.
[21:09.740 --> 21:15.400]  You can go to RadioShack, you can buy a $6 induction telephone pickup, and you can tape the conversation.
[21:15.400 --> 21:17.280]  If you're doing that, tell the journalist you're doing that.
[21:17.520 --> 21:19.640]  And, you know, it just helps to keep everybody honest.
[21:20.040 --> 21:26.680]  Also, even though I've just, you know, told you how little of what you're actually going to say is going to appear in print, assume everything you say is going to stay in print.
[21:27.840 --> 21:34.320]  So, what you want to do is, you don't want to, you know, say something that you would regret seeing in print.
[21:34.460 --> 21:35.940]  And again, this is what the spiel is about.
[21:36.120 --> 21:40.240]  Because when you think for the interview, you think, what don't I want to say?
[21:40.340 --> 21:43.280]  Are there any things I really want to avoid saying?
[21:44.100 --> 21:44.800]  Other don'ts.
[21:44.860 --> 21:45.920]  Don't talk somewhere noisy.
[21:46.220 --> 21:48.700]  You know, sometimes I get these calls from people and say, Oh, no problem.
[21:48.840 --> 21:49.960]  I'll call you from the phone.
[21:50.120 --> 21:50.260]  Great.
[21:50.360 --> 21:51.780]  We'll do the interview as I'm going to the airport.
[21:52.100 --> 21:53.800]  And I can hear maybe one word in ten.
[21:54.080 --> 21:58.560]  Because, you know, he's driving down the, you know, I-95 and car horns are blaring and stuff like that.
[21:58.760 --> 22:02.500]  Or they call me from the middle of a conference floor and it's all noise and craziness.
[22:03.000 --> 22:03.940]  Don't use speaker phones.
[22:04.060 --> 22:04.760]  Sometimes I do that.
[22:04.860 --> 22:08.820]  And it's because it kind of gives you this weird, creepy feeling if you're on the phone and then they're on speaker phone.
[22:08.820 --> 22:10.960]  First off, it makes it hard to understand the person.
[22:11.120 --> 22:14.400]  And then they also tend to do this confer with non-interviewee.
[22:14.600 --> 22:19.600]  It's really irritating when you talk to someone you guys and you say, You know, can you honestly say this product is safe?
[22:19.740 --> 22:21.720]  And they go, well, I think...
[22:23.580 --> 22:25.220]  Yes, it's perfectly safe.
[22:25.420 --> 22:28.560]  You know, you're really not establishing a huge amount of credibility there.
[22:29.460 --> 22:31.840]  Don't stray too far from the subject at hand.
[22:32.180 --> 22:35.660]  Which means that what you really should do is you should let the journalist guide the conversation.
[22:35.660 --> 22:41.540]  But don't, you know, start, well, that reminds me of a strange story one day when me and Cameron Crunch were...
[22:41.540 --> 22:44.220]  You know, try and stay on topic.
[22:44.500 --> 22:46.460]  Also, don't let the journalist lead you way off.
[22:46.900 --> 22:52.460]  Because sometimes maybe, you know, the journalist has rung you up to talk about one thing, but they've really got another thing to talk in the back of their mind.
[22:52.720 --> 22:54.440]  Don't let them, you know, do a bait and switch.
[22:54.720 --> 22:56.160]  You know, if they go too crazy...
[22:56.160 --> 23:03.540]  And this is where also if you've asked for a little time to think about something, you should ask as well at that point, what do you want to talk about?
[23:03.540 --> 23:05.220]  Find out what they want to talk about beforehand.
[23:05.880 --> 23:08.620]  And then if they stray off, you can say, well, we agreed to talk about X.
[23:08.760 --> 23:10.660]  Or I hadn't really prepared anything to say about X.
[23:10.760 --> 23:11.720]  I'll have to get back to you.
[23:12.140 --> 23:14.560]  Don't get, you know, don't fall for that bait and switch.
[23:14.740 --> 23:16.460]  You don't have to be, you know, jerk about it.
[23:16.540 --> 23:18.160]  You told me we would talk about X.
[23:18.200 --> 23:18.800]  So no comment.
[23:18.980 --> 23:23.200]  But you can just say in a very easy way there that doesn't lead to any nasty, you know, comments in print.
[23:23.260 --> 23:26.060]  You can say, well, I wasn't prepared to talk about X today.
[23:26.180 --> 23:27.360]  I haven't got anything ready for you.
[23:27.420 --> 23:29.460]  So why don't we just keep two X, Y, Z topic.
[23:29.460 --> 23:30.960]  Don't get verbally aggressive.
[23:31.140 --> 23:32.300]  Don't be insulting to anybody.
[23:32.780 --> 23:34.480]  Anybody, including Microsoft.
[23:35.220 --> 23:40.440]  You know, don't come in and say, well, those Microsofts are... Bill Gates is the devil.
[23:40.760 --> 23:41.960]  And he's Satan's spawn.
[23:42.060 --> 23:42.840]  He's a complete jerk.
[23:43.300 --> 23:47.640]  Well, unless you've met Bill Gates personally and can vouch for that statement, don't say it.
[23:47.700 --> 23:52.000]  Because it makes you come across as someone who's unreasonable, who's got a personal axe to grind.
[23:52.180 --> 23:54.860]  And it tends to obscure the point that you want to make.
[23:55.960 --> 23:58.980]  And that means to anybody, you know, really keep it cool.
[23:58.980 --> 24:00.020]  It's okay to get excited.
[24:00.160 --> 24:01.500]  This is a really great thing and so on.
[24:01.840 --> 24:06.240]  But generally, you want to keep your cool and come across as a reasonable, rational human being.
[24:07.180 --> 24:10.580]  Swearing, shouting, getting head up does not accomplish that.
[24:11.240 --> 24:12.220]  Again, this comes back.
[24:12.340 --> 24:13.320]  Don't use lots of jargon.
[24:13.820 --> 24:17.600]  You know, try and break things down into explainable terms, you know.
[24:17.940 --> 24:23.340]  And, you know, one man's, you know, and really, you know, do not use acronyms if you can possibly avoid it.
[24:23.500 --> 24:26.540]  Unless they're really, really obvious ones that you would have seen.
[24:26.540 --> 24:30.660]  You know, that you would have seen CNN or the New York Times use without explanation.
[24:31.320 --> 24:32.680]  Really keep the jargon down to a minute.
[24:33.000 --> 24:34.580]  Don't get into an argument with the journalist.
[24:34.860 --> 24:37.280]  Because, oddly enough, the journalist has the last word.
[24:37.960 --> 24:39.060]  They're writing the article.
[24:39.260 --> 24:45.900]  Even if you crush them with your compelling logic during the interview, they can still go out and write whatever kind of story they want.
[24:46.240 --> 24:49.380]  Journalist is not always going to agree with you 100% of the time.
[24:49.380 --> 24:50.160]  That's the way it is.
[24:50.420 --> 24:54.860]  Sometimes the journalist does agree with you, but they're still going to be asking contrarian questions.
[24:55.060 --> 24:59.540]  Because they've interviewed five other people and there's certain points of view that they need to put across to you.
[25:00.000 --> 25:07.040]  So don't bother, you know, getting brow-beating just because, you know, the journalist doesn't seem to have become a convert to your particular cause.
[25:07.640 --> 25:09.560]  It's okay to give a little bit of background color.
[25:10.080 --> 25:15.480]  You know, you can often times, the journalist might ask you, well, how did you feel when you discovered such and such?
[25:15.580 --> 25:17.040]  And you can give a little bit of color.
[25:18.380 --> 25:19.520]  Speak slowly and clearly.
[25:19.840 --> 25:21.080]  Again, tailor your answers.
[25:21.360 --> 25:25.320]  Think about not just the journalist level of competency, but think about their audience.
[25:25.620 --> 25:28.980]  Think about what their audience is interested in hearing about.
[25:29.240 --> 25:30.980]  Let the journalist guide the conversation.
[25:31.200 --> 25:33.120]  So, again, don't go off on long rants.
[25:33.120 --> 25:37.320]  Let's put pauses so the journalist can ask questions or can follow up on questions.
[25:37.640 --> 25:38.360]  Keep notes.
[25:38.360 --> 25:43.100]  If you're not tape recording the interview, and even if you are, you might want to just keep a little record of what was said.
[25:43.300 --> 25:56.340]  This is important because later on, if something awful happens and one of my colleagues violates the tenets of the profession, writes something wrong, you are going to have to have some way to back up, you know, that you're saying that they're wrong.
[25:56.660 --> 25:58.500]  Again, explain things in concrete terms.
[25:58.660 --> 25:59.940]  Be open for follow-up.
[26:00.540 --> 26:06.880]  Be willing to say to them, well, you know, if you have any other questions about this or, you know, related topics, feel free to give me a call back.
[26:07.220 --> 26:09.520]  Suggest other names of people that they can talk to.
[26:09.720 --> 26:13.680]  That's really, a really, really good way, again, of getting a journalist to see your worldview.
[26:13.820 --> 26:18.720]  You can say, well, this is great, but you know who else you should really talk to is, you know, Emmanuel Goldstein.
[26:18.840 --> 26:19.880]  He's got this stuff down cold.
[26:20.200 --> 26:24.080]  What you've done is you've really done yourself as a source because you've become...
[26:24.080 --> 26:26.620]  You've just really helped the journalist.
[26:26.620 --> 26:29.260]  He's going to think good thoughts about you.
[26:30.040 --> 26:35.060]  After the interview, some journalists, I'd say mainly science journalists, have a policy of source.
[26:35.160 --> 26:36.200]  Most journalists don't.
[26:36.280 --> 26:40.660]  I mean, I get laughed at sometimes by my colleagues in sort of the straight press.
[26:41.440 --> 26:44.500]  You know, when I say, yeah, I give quotes to people to check.
[26:45.200 --> 26:47.140]  But a lot of science journalists will do that.
[26:47.140 --> 26:49.180]  If you do have that opportunity, turn it around quickly.
[26:49.760 --> 26:50.440]  You can usually...
[26:50.440 --> 26:52.660]  You're just being asked, you know, did you actually say this?
[26:52.820 --> 26:57.020]  It's possible at that time to negotiate, you know, a word here and there.
[26:57.060 --> 26:58.940]  But it's not an opportunity to rewrite history.
[26:59.080 --> 27:02.360]  And as I say, chance of the journalist had whatever you said originally on tape.
[27:02.540 --> 27:04.480]  So they're really just doing it as a courtesy.
[27:05.340 --> 27:06.440]  Don't hassle the reporter.
[27:06.620 --> 27:09.900]  You know, don't keep coming back and calling up and saying, when is that piece appearing?
[27:09.980 --> 27:10.940]  When is that piece appearing?
[27:11.200 --> 27:11.980]  You promised me...
[27:11.980 --> 27:12.780]  Am I getting the cover?
[27:13.280 --> 27:14.480]  You know, when is that piece appearing?
[27:15.580 --> 27:16.920]  I've had this happen to me.
[27:17.120 --> 27:21.700]  And I've been so annoyed that I've been tempted to just kill a story just to get back at them.
[27:21.960 --> 27:23.900]  You know, just to say, no, that story didn't go through.
[27:24.480 --> 27:27.720]  You know, I haven't done that, but I've been sorely tempted.
[27:28.620 --> 27:30.880]  Oftentimes, a reporter does not have control.
[27:31.140 --> 27:34.540]  Even if I go out and write a piece, I interview people, it can get spiked.
[27:34.700 --> 27:36.380]  Often for reasons outside my control.
[27:36.660 --> 27:38.780]  Maybe a better story came up and took my spot.
[27:39.220 --> 27:43.680]  You know, maybe, you know, somebody else on the higher up the editorial chain didn't particularly like that piece.
[27:44.340 --> 27:50.460]  And if you give the reporter a very hard time all the time about it, well, you know, first off, they're probably feeling bummed because their story got spiked.
[27:50.660 --> 27:55.620]  And they don't particularly want to, you know, reveal that they're not, you know, masters of their particular universe to you.
[27:56.080 --> 27:57.760]  They're not going to think good thoughts about you.
[27:57.860 --> 28:03.120]  And the whole point of all of this is to accept that you don't just want to really deal with a journalist once.
[28:03.120 --> 28:06.300]  You want to, like, cultivate a relationship with a journalist.
[28:07.580 --> 28:09.840]  Be willing to accept that a piece may not run your way.
[28:10.320 --> 28:11.000]  That happens.
[28:11.200 --> 28:11.860]  I mean, I've written...
[28:11.860 --> 28:18.480]  It's very, very, very, very hard to write a piece with two opposing points of view that both people like it.
[28:18.520 --> 28:21.200]  I think it's only happened to me really once.
[28:21.200 --> 28:22.640]  I wrote a story about...
[28:22.640 --> 28:24.580]  Does anybody know Uzi Nissan, his story?
[28:25.700 --> 28:26.020]  Yeah.
[28:26.180 --> 28:29.740]  Uzi Nissan owns the Nissan.com domain name.
[28:30.320 --> 28:34.260]  And oddly enough, Nissan Motor Car, we're not very happy about this.
[28:34.620 --> 28:38.940]  Especially when Uzi started putting car-related advertisements on his homepage.
[28:39.380 --> 28:42.460]  And then this whole legal thing came back and forth.
[28:42.640 --> 28:46.280]  And I actually met Uzi at a H2K2, and we did a little story based on it.
[28:46.580 --> 28:55.160]  That was the only time where both Uzi Nissan and Nissan Motor Corporation rang me up to say, that was a nice piece, and it really showed that their point of view was the right one.
[28:55.440 --> 28:56.500]  That's happened to me once.
[28:57.140 --> 28:58.520]  So it's really not likely to happen.
[28:58.640 --> 29:01.440]  The point about it is that you need to go in and look.
[29:01.620 --> 29:02.880]  Did you get your point across?
[29:03.100 --> 29:04.940]  Was your point of view fairly represented?
[29:05.200 --> 29:07.540]  If it was, that's great.
[29:07.540 --> 29:11.500]  If it wasn't, then you might want to consider about writing a letter to the editor.
[29:11.640 --> 29:12.360]  A polite letter.
[29:12.500 --> 29:14.460]  Because it might have been an honest mistake.
[29:14.920 --> 29:17.540]  It might not have been, but it might have been an honest mistake.
[29:17.620 --> 29:19.220]  Give people at least that benefit of the doubt.
[29:19.600 --> 29:27.700]  Also, the less aggressive you are and the less insulting you are on the letter, the less defensive the person is going to be about it.
[29:28.180 --> 29:31.860]  And, you know, a well-handled complaint can actually...
[29:31.860 --> 29:35.600]  You know, oftentimes, if people get a complaint, you get your letter informed.
[29:35.600 --> 29:38.280]  You can often get your letter, you know, letter to the editor.
[29:38.400 --> 29:39.320]  Sometimes you get a correction.
[29:40.160 --> 29:46.040]  Sometimes you can continue a dialogue with them that it helps get your point across even more so than perhaps the original article did.
[29:46.700 --> 29:47.780]  So complain politely.
[29:47.880 --> 29:51.400]  Do complain if you've been screwed, but do it in a polite manner.
[29:51.560 --> 29:54.460]  Again, back it up with some hard evidence if you possibly can.
[29:55.120 --> 30:02.800]  The objective of all this is that you want to become what's known in the trade as a wise man, a wise woman, which is somebody...
[30:02.800 --> 30:07.800]  I have a few of these people who I can call up about a particular subject, because, again, I'm not an expert in everything.
[30:08.240 --> 30:12.580]  But I can call up and I can say, hey, you know, what did you think about so-and-so?
[30:12.680 --> 30:15.020]  Or there was this particular, you know, exploiter.
[30:15.040 --> 30:16.320]  Why did you think about that hack?
[30:16.460 --> 30:22.520]  Or, you know, even subjects which maybe is not 100% down to speciality, but I know they're the best person to give a good guess.
[30:22.760 --> 30:24.840]  These are people I can ring up and I can talk to.
[30:24.840 --> 30:25.720]  We can shoot the fat.
[30:25.860 --> 30:26.920]  Usually it's off the record.
[30:28.640 --> 30:31.680]  And they will give me either their point of view or they'll give me ideas for stories.
[30:31.820 --> 30:33.800]  Maybe sometimes I'll go back to them for another record quote.
[30:34.120 --> 30:45.060]  If you become one of those go-to sources, if you become somebody that the journalist, you know, is happy to take your calls because, you know, they know you're not going to hassle them every time, you can then get to the point where you can ring them up and you can go,
[30:45.220 --> 30:48.820]  hey, Steve, you know, I heard about there's going to be this thing and I think it's important.
[30:49.320 --> 30:49.820]  That's great.
[30:49.920 --> 30:51.960]  That journalist will take your calls because they rely on you.
[30:52.640 --> 30:55.040]  It's much easier to get a story out of them that way.
[30:55.580 --> 30:58.920]  You also help to... you're constantly educating that journalist then.
[30:59.280 --> 31:00.620]  You're helping to shape their worldview.
[31:01.200 --> 31:08.380]  And so even though you might not get quoted every time or the names you get suggested every time, your worldview is going to filter into that journalist's perception.
[31:09.000 --> 31:10.580]  And that's a really nice place to be.
[31:10.660 --> 31:12.400]  And it's very easy to start that relationship.
[31:12.680 --> 31:15.580]  Again, in the interview, try and be helpful to the journalist.
[31:15.900 --> 31:18.600]  You know, yes, it is a certain amount of they're asking you questions.
[31:18.600 --> 31:19.360]  They're not your friend.
[31:19.460 --> 31:20.340]  They have their own agenda.
[31:20.340 --> 31:31.260]  But if you can be helpful and upfront and honest and explanatory, and then, you know, a useful resource, that journalist will come back to you again and again and again.
[31:31.800 --> 31:35.280]  Because, you know, it's hard to find people who are good to explain things technically.
[31:35.860 --> 31:37.540]  And, you know, we're not experts.
[31:37.640 --> 31:38.700]  We need all the help we can get.
[31:38.880 --> 31:44.480]  So that's really the goal is to try to become one of their go-to sources.
[31:44.740 --> 31:45.660]  Just a final note.
[31:45.720 --> 31:47.900]  I forgot to mention it about on the record and off the record.
[31:48.040 --> 31:49.520]  Again, assume everything is on the record.
[31:49.520 --> 31:51.600]  You can sometimes, you can go to a journalist.
[31:51.900 --> 31:58.540]  Again, generally, the more established an organization they work for, the more likely they're going to honor rules about off the record and on the record.
[31:58.700 --> 32:06.480]  But it's not like, you know, journalists sign a Hippocratic Oath, you know, where they get thrown out of the profession if they break what's on the record and what's off the record.
[32:06.480 --> 32:09.820]  You can say to someone, you can say this interview is full background only.
[32:10.560 --> 32:13.760]  And you can say that and you can generally, most people will honor that.
[32:14.000 --> 32:17.580]  It gets a bit tricky if you're trying to go on and off the record during an interview.
[32:18.220 --> 32:21.380]  Because people sometimes go off the record, they don't really explain when they're going back on there.
[32:21.540 --> 32:25.220]  So you should say, if you want to go off the record, you say, well, I'd like to go off the record here now.
[32:25.700 --> 32:28.520]  Say your piece and then say, well, I'm going to go back on the record now.
[32:28.880 --> 32:30.540]  Most people will honor that.
[32:30.760 --> 32:32.220]  But again, some organizations won't.
[32:32.320 --> 32:39.460]  You'll have to make a judgment based on the research you did in the few minutes while you're waiting, you know, to give them a call back to make that kind of a judgment.
[32:39.580 --> 32:40.940]  What kind of an organization are they?
[32:41.140 --> 32:42.380]  Who is their audience?
[32:43.220 --> 32:44.080]  Okay, questions?
[32:48.420 --> 32:55.640]  Okay, well, in my life, well, again, this is actually part of the point that I don't always talk about who my go-to sources are because sometimes I talk to them about sensitive.
[32:56.000 --> 32:58.580]  But for instance, my other beat is space.
[32:58.820 --> 33:11.300]  So there are a couple of people in NASA, for instance, who I can call up and I can say, and they know that I'm not going to report everything they say, and I can say, well, what do you think about, you know, how is, you know, the NASA reorganization affecting you?
[33:11.580 --> 33:13.520]  There are a couple of people like that.
[33:13.700 --> 33:14.420]  There are a few, you know.
[33:15.700 --> 33:18.040]  They're often, I mean, they're usually, they're often people I've met at conferences.
[33:18.180 --> 33:21.940]  So some of them can be very, some of them can be, you know, some of them are heads of companies.
[33:22.740 --> 33:35.060]  There's a guy who I can call up, and I know he'll just give me a quote instantly, and so oddly enough, and you can probably figure out who this is if you do a very close analysis of my space-related articles, but I know he's going to give me a good quote.
[33:35.140 --> 33:36.520]  I know he's going to be upfront and honest.
[33:36.640 --> 33:37.100]  So there's a guy.
[33:37.240 --> 33:38.500]  So he's a top-level guy.
[33:38.840 --> 33:45.960]  There are other guys who are, you know, I generally like people who are... You really want... A journalist loves people who have their hands on.
[33:46.600 --> 33:50.980]  We hate it when we call up and you talk to a PR person, and they go, yes, it's great.
[33:51.000 --> 33:52.600]  I've got you the vice president of marketing.
[33:53.300 --> 33:54.720]  That's a terrible person to talk to.
[33:54.720 --> 33:55.840]  I want to talk to one of the engineers.
[33:56.020 --> 34:01.060]  I want to talk to... You know, I want to talk to... I want to talk to the person low down the chain as possible, usually.
[34:01.500 --> 34:05.940]  Because I can get all their other stuff that they're vice president from, their press releases from their website and so on.
[34:06.120 --> 34:16.360]  I do like hands-on stuff, because that gives me unique points of view, unique stuff, which is going to make my story stand out from the hundred or so other stories that are just written from press releases.
[34:16.600 --> 34:17.180]  So I do.
[34:17.300 --> 34:18.920]  I like... I like people who have their hands dirty.
[34:19.540 --> 34:20.360]  Any other questions?
[34:21.840 --> 34:22.240]  Yes.
[34:22.460 --> 34:26.380]  I've heard from a journalist, when she gets, like, two to three thousand press releases.
[34:27.400 --> 34:29.300]  I would say she's oversubscribed.
[34:31.160 --> 34:32.480]  Okay, but I mean...
[34:33.340 --> 34:36.960]  No, don't... don't make phone calls either.
[34:37.100 --> 34:38.540]  I should have actually... I should have actually said that.
[34:39.120 --> 34:44.860]  Don't cold call people unless something is really dramatic and happening or you have... already have a relationship with a journalist.
[34:45.200 --> 34:51.180]  Once you've talked to a journalist, you've been a source to them once, then it's okay to cold call because they know you.
[34:51.300 --> 34:53.620]  Not really... you're actually not technically cold calling in that case.
[34:53.900 --> 34:54.400]  But I do.
[34:54.460 --> 34:55.420]  I get a lot of PR people.
[34:55.480 --> 34:56.760]  I get a lot of people who call me up.
[34:56.880 --> 34:59.940]  And it's usually a bad moment, because usually I'm in the middle of doing something else.
[35:00.340 --> 35:04.400]  And I call up and I've got, like, changed mental gears and work out what this person's going on.
[35:04.480 --> 35:10.240]  And it generally does not... you know, I usually don't have... you know, it generally does not rise to the level where I'm immediately going to act on it.
[35:10.240 --> 35:12.000]  Because as I say, I'm busy, I have other things to do.
[35:12.420 --> 35:18.240]  The best way, as I say, really, the best way, and I'm surprised people don't use it more often, is to write a letter.
[35:18.520 --> 35:19.620]  An old-fashioned letter.
[35:19.800 --> 35:27.140]  Because in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, an actual letter with a stamp and handwritten and all the rest of it, that just goes straight to the top of the pile.
[35:27.940 --> 35:32.580]  And, you know, 2,000 emails... she signed herself up for a lot of weird stuff.
[35:34.060 --> 35:34.420]  Paper.
[35:34.620 --> 35:35.060]  Oh, my God.
[35:35.340 --> 35:38.460]  Well, you know, I would say, you know, yeah, that's bad.
[35:38.740 --> 35:40.600]  I'm not at that point either.
[35:41.660 --> 35:46.800]  But I do get a lot of... I do get a lot of press releases and they get a very cursory read-through and they get junked.
[35:48.220 --> 35:48.580]  Sir.
[35:50.240 --> 35:50.800]  I'm sorry.
[35:50.960 --> 35:51.120]  I'm sorry.
[35:51.320 --> 35:57.720]  That question was, she was talking about a particular individual journalist who reportedly got 2,000 to 3,000 emails...
[35:57.720 --> 35:58.620]  Sorry.
[35:58.960 --> 36:01.620]  Paper press releases a week.
[36:01.920 --> 36:02.660]  A week.
[36:02.900 --> 36:04.420]  Which is, you know, which is just too much.
[36:04.520 --> 36:05.160]  You're just saturated.
[36:05.660 --> 36:05.900]  Sorry.
[36:06.820 --> 36:07.280]  Yeah.
[36:07.740 --> 36:11.260]  Your question was about writing a story, but what about
[36:17.660 --> 36:17.860]  you?
[36:18.600 --> 36:23.400]  The question was about, is the process different if a company is trying to get your attention?
[36:23.640 --> 36:27.720]  I would say the process is no different in that I get a lot of company press releases.
[36:27.900 --> 36:30.060]  Every press release is very similar.
[36:31.080 --> 36:36.460]  Company XYZ has a dramatic new product service which will revolutionize XYZ.
[36:36.700 --> 36:39.820]  For more details or interviews, contact PurePerson here.
[36:41.160 --> 36:42.360]  It's really tough.
[36:43.080 --> 36:46.580]  You know, sometimes, I have to say, sometimes I have gotten good stories out of press releases.
[36:47.160 --> 36:48.600]  Not a huge amount of the time.
[36:48.720 --> 36:53.780]  I would say, again, if you're a company, find out the specific person in the area that you're trying to cover.
[36:53.780 --> 36:59.320]  If you're writing about software, find out who on that particular paper or news organization or CNN or wherever the hell it is.
[36:59.800 --> 37:02.800]  Find out who is the specific individual who tends to do that.
[37:02.920 --> 37:06.300]  You can do that now, thankfully, with a little bit of search on their archive.
[37:06.560 --> 37:07.840]  And then write a letter to them.
[37:07.960 --> 37:08.460]  Dear blog.
[37:08.760 --> 37:09.360]  You know, dear Joe.
[37:09.540 --> 37:11.080]  I saw your story on blah.
[37:11.320 --> 37:13.100]  I think you might also be interested in blah.
[37:13.100 --> 37:14.080]  And then tell them why.
[37:14.240 --> 37:15.600]  Because this is significant.
[37:15.600 --> 37:24.040]  This is a significant advance because we're the first person to use, you know, a specific new technology which is going to become the hot new thing.
[37:26.600 --> 37:26.980]  Yes.
[37:27.180 --> 37:29.400]  And then I would attach the press release then into the letter.
[37:29.480 --> 37:34.720]  Because press releases are useful in that they usually have all that good contact information, gooey goodness.
[37:34.720 --> 37:44.280]  And often it tells you the specific, like, very mechanical things a person needs to know about writing a story, which is what is the full name of the organization or person?
[37:44.420 --> 37:45.540]  What is their address?
[37:45.780 --> 37:46.900]  Are they a limited company?
[37:47.000 --> 37:47.520]  Are they a PLC?
[37:47.700 --> 37:48.800]  All that kind of...
[37:48.800 --> 37:50.920]  All that kind of, like, you know, just...
[37:50.920 --> 37:54.300]  It's boilerplate, but it's actually a necessary boilerplate for most articles.
[37:55.220 --> 37:55.800]  Yes, sir.
[38:19.580 --> 38:19.860]  Sure.
[38:20.800 --> 38:28.780]  He's asking about what happens when, you know, when you qualify and you say, hypothetically, if I was going to hack the White House, I would, you know, go through port 75 or whatever it is.
[38:28.920 --> 38:33.020]  And then, you know, all that gets dropped out and becomes, if I was hacking the White House, I go through port 75.
[38:33.540 --> 38:38.340]  Again, the question comes back to when I was talking earlier about assuming everything you say can be seen in print.
[38:38.560 --> 38:43.080]  Also assume the quotation marks can be sort of moved back and forth.
[38:43.340 --> 38:45.700]  And, you know, most journalists will not...
[38:45.700 --> 38:50.900]  Most, you know, most places do manage to maintain enough stuff not to, you know, make up what you've said.
[38:51.100 --> 38:53.160]  But they will, you know, choose the window.
[38:53.160 --> 38:55.880]  Again, so you need to come back and think about...
[38:55.880 --> 38:57.860]  This goes back to what I don't want to say.
[38:58.140 --> 39:02.740]  You might honestly, in that situation, want to say, I don't talk about hypotheticals.
[39:03.220 --> 39:04.820]  Or I really don't want to do...
[39:04.820 --> 39:10.060]  Or, you know, well, that's something I really wouldn't be able to comment on because how would I know how to hack the White House?
[39:10.580 --> 39:13.820]  You know, you really... that's something where you want to be careful.
[39:13.940 --> 39:16.120]  Now, again, you should consider the person you're talking to.
[39:16.120 --> 39:17.320]  You say you've gotten burnt.
[39:17.500 --> 39:22.380]  Well, you might have a journalist who you know or whose work you've read and you like.
[39:22.580 --> 39:25.040]  And you might think, well, that's somebody I can trust.
[39:25.360 --> 39:27.060]  It does become down to a trust issue.
[39:27.160 --> 39:31.320]  As much as journalists are not your friends and they're the enemy and all of this kind of stuff, there is trust.
[39:31.800 --> 39:34.540]  The journalist usually is trusting that you're telling them the truth.
[39:35.600 --> 39:37.060]  Usually, they try to check.
[39:37.180 --> 39:38.220]  They're not always able to.
[39:38.220 --> 39:43.540]  But there is, A, the journalist is kind of trusting that you're not, you know, completely in some sort of Bar-Munchausen universe.
[39:44.060 --> 39:46.560]  And you're trusting that they're going to report what they say accurately.
[39:46.840 --> 39:49.120]  But you have to be... that's... it's not absolute.
[39:49.260 --> 39:50.100]  You do have to measure it.
[39:50.160 --> 39:57.240]  If you're not happy with the journalist or you think they've done, you know, very sketchy stuff in the past, and you should know this before you go into the interview.
[39:57.340 --> 39:58.140]  You should look at their website.
[39:58.220 --> 39:59.340]  You should look at their publication.
[39:59.740 --> 40:02.240]  Then you can say, I don't want to talk about hypotheticals.
[40:03.000 --> 40:07.840]  Or if you do, couch your quote in such a way that it couldn't possibly be distorted against you.
[40:08.760 --> 40:09.520]  Anybody else?
[40:10.300 --> 40:10.820]  You, sir.
[40:11.260 --> 40:11.700]  I asked
[40:17.630 --> 40:19.490]  by someone in the EDS.
[40:19.810 --> 40:24.270]  How do you separate the person being interviewed from the company that they work for?
[40:24.690 --> 40:26.290]  Sometimes you'll see a journalist who
[40:33.100 --> 40:35.420]  comes off and them speaking for that company.
[40:35.580 --> 40:38.820]  Yeah, actually, and actually that's, you know, that's what's going to happen.
[40:39.660 --> 40:45.560]  If you are speaking, if they contact you through the company, and you're speaking on company time, on a company phone number, and blah, blah, blah.
[40:45.820 --> 40:51.880]  If you want to be treated as a private individual, and they say they contact you at work, you could say, well, I'm at work.
[40:52.100 --> 40:53.500]  This isn't part of my work.
[40:53.640 --> 40:55.200]  We should discuss this at home.
[40:55.340 --> 40:59.580]  And again, when you're talking about, remember I said setting the terms of the conditions of the interview?
[40:59.860 --> 41:03.680]  It's reasonable at that point to say, I'm speaking as a private individual.
[41:04.140 --> 41:07.220]  Nothing I say should be attributed as part of my employers.
[41:08.120 --> 41:10.040]  And then you have a basis then for going back.
[41:10.040 --> 41:17.640]  And if they do say that you're speaking for, you know, XYZ Corporation, you can say, no, I specifically established with a journalist that that was not the case.
[41:17.860 --> 41:28.360]  It is very difficult if I call somebody, you know, in their role as, you know, a project manager at a particular company, I'm talking the company time, to really distinguish that.
[41:28.520 --> 41:31.000]  You might want to say, you know, this is a personal matter.
[41:31.140 --> 41:32.960]  I want to call you after work.
[41:33.100 --> 41:35.020]  You know, or I'll call you from my home phone.
[41:35.540 --> 41:42.680]  And that makes it very hard then for the journalists to, if they are, you know, if you're complaining afterwards, to be able to say, oh, well, I thought they were speaking for the company.
[41:42.820 --> 41:46.760]  When you can go, well, I told you I wasn't speaking for the company, and then I made you call me on my home phone.
[41:51.960 --> 41:52.240]  Right.
[42:03.260 --> 42:07.440]  Well, and then in that case, honestly, then you should really think twice about talking to the journalist.
[42:07.440 --> 42:19.900]  It is going to be very, very difficult for them to distinguish, and you professionally, I mean, your employer is going to think the same thing, to be able to distinguish your role, you know, because you're being contacted as somebody in a company, as a particular role in that company.
[42:19.980 --> 42:21.440]  That's why they're talking to you in the first place.
[42:21.620 --> 42:25.780]  It is going to be almost impossible to distinguish them for that between you and Joe Schmoe.
[42:25.840 --> 42:28.940]  And in any cases, it's worthless to the journalists if they do that.
[42:29.200 --> 42:43.180]  If I just consider you a private individual and I don't attribute you in any way, that you also happen to be a researcher at Symantec or wherever it happens to be, why are you being quoted in the first place is going to be the thought when the reader comes.
[42:43.460 --> 42:49.800]  So, in many cases, that actually might be a situation whereby you just should not talk to a journalist in that particular case.
[42:49.880 --> 43:04.800]  If you can't talk officially and your position is such that the roles are going to be invariably smeared, that should be a case where maybe you should either talk... you should either talk... not talk to them at all or insist that you're only going to talk to them on background or off the record.
[43:05.120 --> 43:07.760]  And then they can use your information in other ways.
[43:07.940 --> 43:15.700]  But in that case, that should be a case where you should be very worried about going on the press because it's going to be very difficult for anybody, including the journalist, to be able to tell your roles apart.
[43:15.880 --> 43:17.660]  And I see I've got my five-minute flag.
[43:18.680 --> 43:19.300]  Yes, to you, sir.
[43:19.300 --> 43:25.500]  You refer to discarding faxes and emails that are coming in that you're likely to do.
[43:25.940 --> 43:33.600]  Do you, on a personal basis for your organization, or have internally searched the databases?
[43:34.920 --> 43:36.840]  No, I mean, most of the stuff is...
[43:36.840 --> 43:39.700]  Sorry, the question was, you know, I filter out a lot of material.
[43:39.840 --> 43:40.380]  Do I do that?
[43:40.500 --> 43:41.600]  Does somebody in my company do that?
[43:41.720 --> 43:42.840]  Does it go into a central database?
[43:43.160 --> 43:52.300]  No, most of the material that comes into the country, into the company, whether it's paper or email, you know, is usually addressed specifically to me.
[43:52.880 --> 44:00.180]  Somebody might see it and will reroute it, but it's not the job of, say, the editorial assistants and so on to make those kind of filtering decisions.
[44:00.580 --> 44:01.500]  That's done by me.
[44:01.620 --> 44:02.920]  It doesn't get entered into a database.
[44:03.220 --> 44:08.740]  My email, generally, you know, my filters take care of a lot of it.
[44:09.060 --> 44:11.080]  And, you know, sometimes, so I might not even see it.
[44:11.120 --> 44:13.680]  So you can see here's a whole bunch of stuff.
[44:13.680 --> 44:15.220]  So it doesn't get entered into a database.
[44:15.680 --> 44:16.960]  Oftentimes, I will read it quickly.
[44:17.600 --> 44:18.500]  I will decide...
[44:18.500 --> 44:24.900]  I will make a very rapid decision and it then goes into the trash can or into either the physical or electronic versions of the trash can.
[44:25.120 --> 44:26.080]  It's not recorded.
[44:26.440 --> 44:38.640]  Some press release sources I will record even if I don't read them, but these are generally press releases that I subscribe to and that I later on think that I'm going to need to mine for particular information, such as, you know, the NASA HQ press release feed.
[44:38.700 --> 44:39.860]  I might need to go back into that.
[44:40.040 --> 44:43.740]  But as a general rule, I don't archive old press releases, no.
[44:44.800 --> 44:46.180]  Time for, I think, one more question.
[44:46.360 --> 44:46.920]  Can we talk a little more?
[44:46.980 --> 44:47.520]  Anybody else?
[44:49.020 --> 44:49.340]  Viewer?
[44:49.920 --> 44:50.240]  Viewer?
[44:50.580 --> 44:50.840]  No?
[44:51.800 --> 44:52.500]  I think that's it.
[44:52.620 --> 44:53.340]  Oh, one more.
[44:53.460 --> 44:53.660]  All right.
[45:22.750 --> 45:27.190]  Well, again, it's, but it's, again, it's, you know, there you need to look at it.
[45:27.270 --> 45:30.170]  I mean, okay, that might have been, if you had all the facts, you've got to be careful.
[45:30.270 --> 45:33.750]  Did he, was he just saying those facts or did he send those facts to them?
[45:34.290 --> 45:34.650]  Okay.
[45:34.850 --> 45:41.470]  Well, in that case, in that case, but from the, so the question was, there was a scientist who was taking an awful lot of attribution for something.
[45:42.070 --> 45:45.890]  Another scientist called him on it and sent the organization with the facts.
[45:46.070 --> 45:51.950]  And all the organization would do, instead of, you know, calling the first scientist, you know, calling him out for it, said there's some controversy over the attribution.
[45:52.610 --> 46:04.510]  Unfortunately, if you're, if I'm a paper, or if I'm doing my day and I get all this information from one person, and somebody else calls me up and says, you know, I'm often, because again, it's considered, I'm not an expert in the field.
[46:04.970 --> 46:07.030]  I'm often not capable of making that determination.
[46:07.470 --> 46:16.190]  I'm often not, I'm probably not going to go out and call the first guy a liar because, you know, I'm not in a position, I can't, I can't vouch for the rash of that evidence.
[46:16.310 --> 46:20.710]  If a third person comes in and says, you know, who, someone who I know, and again, this comes to my source.
[46:20.710 --> 46:22.150]  If I call up my source and say, what do you think?
[46:22.250 --> 46:24.570]  Did Joe Bloggs actually do this or was it the other guy?
[46:24.670 --> 46:26.270]  And they go, well, it was probably the other guy.
[46:26.550 --> 46:28.170]  Then I'm probably more willing to do it.
[46:28.290 --> 46:28.790]  We do.
[46:28.910 --> 46:32.930]  We've had situations of attribution and people get upgraded and downgraded and stuff like that.
[46:33.110 --> 46:41.270]  But in that situation where I had two people, it would be like a he said, she said thing, and I would probably just go with, you know, there's some controversy over the attribution.
[46:41.430 --> 46:46.470]  If I knew a little bit more about it, I might be more willing to go in and drop out somebody or stuff like that.
[46:46.470 --> 46:48.070]  But again, I'm not going to campaign for you.
[46:48.230 --> 46:57.170]  I'm not going to start going out and, like, writing a truth campaign about this particular guide because, you know, that's tangential to my role as telling a particular story.
[47:01.390 --> 47:02.230]  Oh, that's perfect.
[47:02.350 --> 47:03.030]  That's even better.
[47:03.150 --> 47:03.990]  There's justice for you.
[47:04.750 --> 47:05.910]  Okay, I think that's about it.
[47:06.030 --> 47:07.250]  Again, I have copies of the handout.
[47:07.410 --> 47:10.610]  And if anybody wants a copy of Spectrum, I just, sorry, one thing.
[47:10.950 --> 47:13.410]  Nobody has come up to me as a member of the IEEE.
[47:13.570 --> 47:18.850]  I have a small prize for anybody who can tell me what 802.11 is.
[47:20.630 --> 47:21.010]  Okay.
[47:21.010 --> 47:21.530]  All right.
[47:21.650 --> 47:22.550]  That's the easy one.
[47:22.690 --> 47:24.650]  Then there is, okay, 1394.
[47:25.990 --> 47:26.550]  All right.
[47:26.790 --> 47:28.450]  Okay, now we get 802.3.
[47:32.460 --> 47:32.840]  1003.
[47:34.920 --> 47:35.300]  Okay.
[47:35.640 --> 47:35.800]  All right.
[47:35.880 --> 47:36.720]  Who else had POSIX?
[47:37.580 --> 47:38.380]  Okay, that's two.
[47:38.540 --> 47:39.440]  Okay, now the tiebreaker.
[47:41.080 --> 47:41.460]  754.
[47:44.720 --> 47:45.100]  No.
[47:48.000 --> 47:48.380]  Intel.
[47:48.400 --> 47:49.020]  Who said Intel?
[47:49.180 --> 47:50.200]  Who said, what is it for?
[47:51.780 --> 47:52.540]  No, no.
[47:52.680 --> 47:52.800]  Sorry.
[47:52.960 --> 47:54.580]  It's a floating point.
[47:54.580 --> 47:55.120]  Floating point.
[47:55.340 --> 47:55.720]  All right.
[47:55.820 --> 47:56.240]  There we go.
[47:56.680 --> 47:57.660]  Okay, so...
[47:58.740 --> 48:00.540]  So, I'll give you one of these.
[48:00.840 --> 48:02.040]  And I'll give you this one.
[48:02.400 --> 48:02.820]  So, there you go.
[48:03.300 --> 48:03.500]  All right.
[48:03.540 --> 48:04.220]  Thank you very much.
[48:12.100 --> 48:12.500]  Gadget.
[48:13.300 --> 48:13.700]  Excellent.
[48:14.160 --> 48:14.500]  Thank you.
[48:14.500 --> 48:14.660]  Thank you.
[48:15.000 --> 48:15.020]  Thank you.
[48:15.020 --> 48:15.240]  And this is the first sentence.