If you’re a paid spokesperson, (I did a little of such work for a company) you just put the message out there, and then go home and cook dinner. But academics are supposed to be saying what they believe, what they stand for.

That’s why, for example, I think Larry Lessig as an example often looks so exhausted. Larry is fact has somewhat nuanced views on copyright. Yet he has the public duty of being the point man contesting expansion of CR in every debate, in debates where nuance and subtlety are taken as concessions.

The truth is he does a better job than others would. But for him, (and for others) press and lobbying work are a part-time job. Result is soul-draining exhaustion.

Let me also mention a related East Coast / DC angle. As you suggest, some of this is, in short, why lobbyists work — because money buys someone’s time to talk to the press, to talk to Congressional staffers, to talk at obscure conferences, over and over and over again.

Others have said this, but political debates in the U.S. today are mostly a volume play. Quality of argument times volume = strength of argument.

I’d only say that occasionally — particularly on NPR, though maybe I am biased — talking makes you think of the issue in a new way, because you’re forced to connect it down a few levels of abstraction. But as you say that’s the exception.

One final question. Do you ever feel that complaining like this feels like complaining about a self-inflicted injury? After all, you or we could always simply say ‘no….’ Some people always do, and the world does go on.

Its like David Sedaris said in an interview on NPR — he said, I don’t write as much about my current life (basically as a famous writer) because no one can relate to it.

Public Intellectuals
A Study of Decline
Richard A. Posner

“In this timely book, the first comprehensive study of the modern American public intellectual–that individual who speaks to the public on issues of political or ideological moment–Richard Posner charts the decline of a venerable institution that included worthies from Socrates to John Dewey.”

A good read on the subject.

Once infuriated after participating in a panel discussion on digital media at some dotcom era conference, Ian Rogers reminded me, “You don’t need to give those fools the heads-up; they don’t get it anyway.” Ian Rogers is always right.
http://fistfulayen.com/

Some folks, such as myself, are very – very – very greatful that you (and others Catarina and Stuart and…) do this so we don’t have to. It gives us the freedom to dedicate ourselves full-time to effecting the changes you talk about.

Thanks!

randy [Who isn't a press expert. ]

And that is a point which your otherwise observant post omits. The mainstream media exists to protect the mainstream institutions. They try to socialize people into behaving and believing a certain way. There is latitude in a democracy, but only within acceptable and non-threatening limits.

The Internet provides everyday people with the tools to become publishers and broadcasters. Liebling’s Law on freedom of the press is just about repealed. That, more than just simple ignorance and technophobia, is why they fear sites like MySpace so much.

Just the economist’s idea:
To avoid repeating yourself, maybe you should tell them that you are fed up with spending so much time going through the same idea, and give a journalist-only class on whatever they all seem to care: your University can provide you with a room and a mic, right? For once, the “students” might want to listen. I’m sure they would feel ackward, back on teh benches.

Answer – respond to their comment
Bridge – moving the statement to where you want it
Close – end on the message that you want to get across.

Keep the answers simple, use simple language, keep them snappy. Get a list of the questions in advance or at least the areas of interest. See if you can do them as an email or an IM, for print journalists.

Best of luck in your role as media pundit.

I try very hard to not take up too much of an expert’s time by researching the subject beforehand, though it’s a tough balance. Occasionally you go in to get a quote from someone and they want to chat for a long time about this field, cause you know, this is their life passion. I think sometimes I get in and out too quickly and offend people. It’s tough to feel out at the beginning of a conversation how much time and depth someone I am interviewing wants. Also, I have a very strong ethic of making sure they get something out of it. Sometimes this means asking an interesting question, giving them a resource they might not have known about, buying lunch, or just being amusing and fun to talk to. I don’t feel I’ve done a good interview if I don’t get the “Ohh, uh, good question” moment. Not all the interviews have to be good; some of them have to be quick. It’s funny you talking about reporters taking up too much time, and the nationals being better about it- I suspect it’s not because they are better reporters, it’s because they’re on nastier deadlines. I am sure many experts before talking to locals because, damnit, those reports take their time to talk to the experts. Anytime I am writing about a contensious issue I try to make sure the experts I’m talking to can change my mind. I’ll write down my bias beforehand, and try to set up questions that knock it down. I don’t try and pretend I don’t have one, personally, that doesn’t work for me. I think it might for others.

As for being a cultural anthropolgist vs phd student. oh man. What I am selling to an editor is access, so your status is a proxy for my ability. We’re paid by the word, we’d love to say “danah is a phd student at berkeley who has made her particular field of study social networks, beginning with friendster and moving onto myspce. She’s published much cogent research on this, and is quick unique that way… etc etc etc” But we’re paid by the word, so the editor would shorten that to “Cultural Anthropologist.”

A lot of what people think is evil or bias in the press is just lazy. Even lazy isn’t the right word: often just low paid. I was interviewing a famous figure (who was also a friend) and he railed against the ignorance of the media in his field for a while. I stopped him and said, ok, I’m being paid $300 for this article, you tell me, how much effort should I give it? He was fairly shocked. This is why we try to cover the same areas again and again. Often the people you talk to are under a hell of a lot of pressure and not making a ton of money, plus they have to be experts in a half dozen fields a week.

Making a whitelist and a blacklist: I’ve been on both sides. I’ve been part of communities that have reporters they talk to and reporters they don’t. As a reporter, you pass around experts. The same people get the call all the time, it’s the network effect. If you’re on deadline it’s nice to have someone to call that a) knows how to talk to press and b) has a history of being reliable.

As for the “would not comment” thing, that’s complex. There’s “did not respond by press time” type no comment, which is meant to make clear we couldn’t give them much time. There’s didn’t respond to inquiries, or didn’t respond to multiple inquiries, which is pretty obvious. Usually declined to comment means, at least ime, I had them on the phone and they said “we won’t comment on that” or something similar. I’ll usually say something like I’m going to say you declined to comment, and get them to agree.

Some people tell me exactly how much time I have with them when I call- I appreciate that, and I imagine it keeps my kind from eating their lives. I can understand why some people would say give your quote, then just rephrase it, but I disagree. That assumes bad reporters and punishes good ones that want more than a reaction quote. I’ve had articles that wound us in places that surprised me. That couldn’t have happened if the people I was talking to hadn’t talked to me like a human being.

I totally disagree about European reporting. It’s just as bad. Or good, depending on your editor. There are better and worse publications, and better and worse reporters. I don’t buy there are better and worse continents.

Also, I do photography for my stories. I have nothing to add there, we’re just obnoxious.

Although, a missed point in here is:
Be careful with very complex ideas about abstract comments – “the public”, “network management”, or even “community”. Reporters often screw them up. I’ve been quoted a few times now where I felt they really didn’t get it (and a few times where they did) – but it was mainly me not doing enough conceptual pre-chewing.