[meteorite-list] Fact Sheet - Possible Media Solution?

From: MeteorHntr at aol.com <MeteorHntr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:06:15 EDT
Message-ID: <d37.4d50f355.378896c7_at_aol.com>

Hello List,

I was greeted this morning with a front page story in the Baltimore Sun.
While it could have been worse, it made me realize I need to do something
to help writers focus on the facts and the real story and not to slide over
and just use the more sensational answers or comments given in an
interview.

Also, some reports do actually attempt to do more research on their own
before writing, and sometimes they interview amateurs that are even better at
saying not-so-smart things like those of us with experience are also so
good at doing.

As Darryl mentioned the other day, reporters tend to resist writing from a
Press Release and usually will work to manufacture their own story from
the ground up based on what they uncover in their interviews.

So maybe a solution might be a "Fact Sheet" I can have preprinted to give
to the reporters at each interview.

Of course, if I am not asked a certain question by a reporter, there is a
greater chance I won't offer that fact in my interview. Or if I do, it can
be out of the context of the interview and the reporter might not
understand why what I said was important.

Time is often a restraint, both in the interview and in the writing to
meet a deadline, so it isn't always the reporters fault that they don't get
around to asking the questions that would paint a clearer picture.

Maybe a Fact Sheet could be in a F.A.Q. fashion? Or just stated as Facts,
billet style?

So, I would like some help from you guys.

I would like some suggestions as to what should be included in a fact
sheet, so that when handed to the reporter, they can refer to it during and/or
after the interview as they might need.

For starters, I can list my name and contact information, that would be
good. (Nothing worse than one's name being spelled wrong in the paper.)

I can list my correct age (which is 43 not 42 as erroneously stated in
today's story). Which does make you pause, if a reporter can't get someone's
age correct, is it any wonder that other aspects of the story might get
skewed a little (or a lot) one way or another. However, in the case of Robert
Haag in the Astronomy story a few years back, they listed him as 40 years
old and not 50 years old. A "typo" I am sure! ;-) (Or as someone hinted,
maybe a little slice of Zagami under the table might have helped that typo
to not be spotted in time!)

How about "Why are meteorites are valuable to science?" Q, with an
appropriate and pithy answer. After all, if it wasn't for the science, we really
wouldn't have much in the way of higher demand for many of our meteorites.

Of course, there is a collectors market. And while the words "treasure"
and "hunter" together can give a negative connotation, they can give an
adventurous one as well. And we all have to admit, while it is not all just
for the money, that does play at least a part in why those of us in the field
do what they do. How can the fact that we are also hunting for the source
of knowledge, not just cash be stated?

I suppose I could go through all the media stories I have seen lately and
pull out the errors and try to find out why the reporter might have got the
reporting of it wrong. Then find a way to stress, in the Fact Sheet, what
is the correct take should be on it.

For example, after talking about how most meteorites are "common" and
don't offer all that much valuable new information, others do. I went on that
some are far more desirous to researchers than others, and to collectors as
well. In that context I mentioned that "meteorites can be worth from 5
cents a gram up to over $1,000 dollars a gram."

There seemed to be some negative reaction from the York newspaper's story
here on the M-List where that range was mentioned. Well, now the Baltimore
reporter (who was in the same interview as the York reporter) decided to
drop the range I had given and just somehow averaged it all out to:
"hundreds of dollars per gram" instead. Probably shorter and easier that way for
him. I am sure his editor appreciated it being shorter, in fact, maybe it
was his editor that shortened it for him.

Of course, factually both reporters are not incorrect as to the values,
and doing a search on any dealer website and on ebay shows both of those
statements to be factually correct. However, maybe I can state that a fact on
my Fact Sheet that majority of all meteorites are worth from $0.20 to $2
per gram. And that certain factors determine why they might be worth more or
less than that range.

Any other suggestions?

Oh, I would imagine Ruben might suggest that I add that "Fossils are not
found in meteorites."

Any others?

Steve Arnold
of "Meteorite Men"

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323031x1201367232/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JulystepsfooterNO62)
Received on Fri 10 Jul 2009 09:06:15 AM PDT