What to expect when you're expecting to be interviewed

Interviewed by me, anyway.

(As per usual: This is just my opinion. It might not be yours! In this case, this is also my journalistic practice, and it might not be yours! That’s ok. It doesn’t make either of us bad people. So like, take that into account.)

I put a snarky post on Bluesky, and paid the price. And I think I owe you all an explanation.

Am I being snippy here? Yes. But I’m also telling the truth. Many journalists will not let sources see quotes before publication.* This is part of journalism standards and practices. But this made a lot of people upset. I could get things wrong.

The conversation devolved from there, and a friend ended up telling me I was being arrogant (ok. Maybe). And as a colleague gently told me…people don’t often listen when others are snarky. That’s fair.

But it also shows that a lot of people don’t know how journalism functions in the day to day. And really, I’m not surprised. It’s not like anyone told me before I became one (I was a scientist first, so I’m coming at this from both sides). It’s not like anyone outside of journalism even knows how we do what we do! Why would they? And while journalists love to talk about transparency, we often end up using jargon when we explain ourselves, causing further confusion.

So I’d like to take this opportunity to talk through my process. This is actually something I do with many of my sources when I get on the phone or Zoom with them. I ask them, “have you spoken with a journalist before? Would you like me to explain my process?” And then I give them a quick rundown.

Note: These standards are mine, everyone works slightly differently. Not everyone does everything the same way in any field. Also: you might not agree with my methods! That’s ok. This is in fact an area where things are subjective and there’s room for disagreement! This does not make either of us bad people.

The Rundown

This process actually begins when I first ask a scientist (usually) to speak with me. My first email always includes my name, what I do, and the outlet I’m writing for. Many times for the outlet, if it’s not well-known, I link to it. I also include why I want to speak with the person I’m emailing. Maybe they are an author on the study. Maybe they are not an author on the study, and I’m contacting them to get a gut check about the study (this is called outside comment, contacting someone in the field who is not on the study to say hi, is this study any good? Is it important? Usually, we contact more than one person, both because often people don’t reply to their email, and because scientists are human which means scientists have beef with each other, and when it comes to the science itself, I don’t want the beef unless it is directly related to scientific practice). No one has an obligation to speak with me. No one. If you don’t want to talk, I will not hold that against you (though if you are the author on a paper, it might mean I can’t write about the paper unless I get in touch with another author).

Once we set up a time to talk, it goes like this:

• I ask them if I can record the interview. I explain that I will do this to create an automated transcript (which I will of course correct for grammar and mistakes), and I will use that to confirm the quotes I use. My editors and my fact checkers have access to the recording, my notes, and the transcript (as well as the papers I’m using), so they can confirm that the person said what they said and it is not being taken out of context. Some people do ask for me not to record the interview, and I will respect that if necessary….but I really try to convince them otherwise. This is for my protection and for theirs! I want proof we said what we said.

• I explain to someone what “on the record” means. It means that anything you say can be quoted. I also explain to them that if they wish to go off the record, they can say so, and I will confirm. I will pause the recording. If necessary, I will even keep my hands where you can see them to show I am not taking notes (I once held my hands in the air for 90 minutes straight). If we agree that something is “off the record” I will not publish what you say. There are other terms journalists use like “on background” or “deep background,” which means they might use a quote without attribution (think “sources close to so and so say”).

• I ask for some demographic data. Usually this means your personal and family name (written as you would like it to appear), pronouns, primary affiliation, and how people describe their field of study (for space reasons I usually ask for an -ologist of some kind). I personally collect extra data (it’s optional, sources don’t have to tell me), for gender, age, race, general location, as well as if someone identifies as LBTQIA+, a person with a disability, first-generation college, veteran status (again, all optional). I do that because I personally keep track of the diversity of my sources, to try to make sure I’m representing science done by more than just, um, white Ivy League guys.

• Then we talk about the study. If they are an author, I’ll often ask about inspiration, get some details on the methods, run through the findings to make sure I understand them correctly, and run through the implications to make sure I’m not going to over-hype anything. If they are an outside commenter, I’ll ask them if the study is important, if any problems jumped out at them, and what the study contributes to their field or understanding.

• Sometimes, especially if there’s an extreme time crunch (many straight science news stories are written on a 72 hour turnaround, and some are less), if I have already spoken to the source before, or if there’s a language barrier, I send questions over email. Generally, I prefer not to. First, because we often sound stilted over email. But second, because in an organic conversation I often pick up so much more! There are new angles and interesting questions that can add context and accuracy. Did you know the preservative in insect pitfall traps is bright neon pink? That a guy once stored two pythons in his pants? That some species of fruit bat hate citrus fruit and get all grumpy over it? That pack rats make off with archaeologist’s snacks while they’re digging? I wouldn’t have picked up any of those over email.

Then, I put the story together and file it. I personally file two versions (again, this is just me!). One is “clean” which is just the story, the demographic data, the citations, that sort of thing. One is “annotated.” That one is chock-full of comments. The comments link to proof that a source is who they say they are (a uni webpage, publication page, something like that). They include quotes from the papers with a link to which paper I’m pulling a fact from. They include timestamps and transcript notes for the quotes. They include rundowns of math or temperature conversions (please, for the love of God someone else look at my math). Every fact or quote has a comment with it showing where I got it. This is both to check my own work as I go, and also to make the fact-checker’s life easier.

Next step: The editors go to work. They come back to me with corrections to style, but also sometimes we talk about re-ordering the story. Sometimes they ask me for more clarity on the science. We go back and forth until we are satisfied. Sometimes I email the sources again for clarification on something. The editors also discuss illustrations (including getting back to the source to make sure the image has the right attribution!), write image captions, and so on. If it’s news, the piece may get hammered out in just a few hours. If a feature? I’ve had some go a year or even more.

If we are under embargo (as in, the study is to be published on X date and we need to publish on that date but not one second before), the story often goes up online after a final read (see the 72-hour turnaround thing). If not, the fact-checkers go to work before it goes online or into print (so at some outlets, the online version is not fact-checked but the print version is). These are amazing, wonderful people employed to make sure we are accurate and truthful, and to make sure I don’t make a massive fool of myself in public (I do that plenty on my own, thanks). Those people go through my transcript, checking to make sure I’m not just cherry picking things. They go through the papers, making sure my numbers are correct, making sure I’m not misinterpreting the study. At some outlets, they call the source or email the source and let them know what will be said (usually paraphrased). They almost always catch something, it’s incredibly rare to have a fact-check come through without one error, from a missing decimal to a discussion about whether or not a toad REALLY has a butt.

That’s the sausage. That’s how it’s made. Some publications publish their standards and practices so you can see them as well. Some examples:

• Science News

• NPR

• The Washington Post

One thing you may notice in the explanation though, is that no where in there do I show the quotes I’m using, or the article I’ve written, to the source. Sources are not allowed to see the piece before publication, and you will see that listed in all of the standards and practices linked above. If someone is very worried, I can paraphrase what I will use from them, that’s ok. The fact checker may email or call the source to confirm accuracy of quotes or facts. But neither I nor anyone else will send the source the copy to mark up and approve.

Note: There ARE some exceptions to this. For example, if I am covering very sensitive subjects, I will sometimes share quotes, or read them, or paraphrase them to a source. This is because part of our job as journalists is to protect our sources. My work should not ruin someone’s career or personal life, unless my work is bringing to light something nefarious that person has done (that’s happened). So for example, if I’m writing about someone from a historically-marginalized community, and writing specifically about something related to that issue, I may read them quotes, explicitly for their protection. I also do that when working with sources that have experienced trauma around the topic I’m writing about. I want to tell the truth. I also don’t want to be a jerk.

Here we get to what I said. Scientists often wonder why they cannot see their quotes prior to publication. They worry a lot that quotes will be taken out of context and that I will write something incorrect about their science.

I was a scientist, and I get it. If I see one more article taking dopamine in vain…

…but I also cannot and will not send you your quotes.

But why?

To understand why we need to go to my Bluesky post at the top. Most of the standards and practices for science journalism have arisen because of standards and practices in other journalism fields, particularly politics.

And I think we can all agree that we do NOT want politicians seeing their quotes or the article before publication. That’s not journalism. That is…I don’t know what that is.

But politicians aren’t the only sources out to make themselves look a specific way. Industry lobbyists (oil companies, anyone? Fashion brands?), political parties, universities, criminals and victims of crimes, heck, even scientists want to look good in print. People have and continue to lie to the press, and good journalists will catch those lies. If you let people see the article beforehand, they can “correct” the way they look.

As I tell sources. My job is not to make you look good, and it’s not to make you look bad. My job is to tell the truth as it is available to me at the time.

So journalists have, over time, had to create standards and practices to ensure that we can do that. And it’s a whole lot easier to create a standard that says “no one gets to see the piece/quotes before publication” than to try to pick and choose who does and who doesn’t based on whether we deem them or their subject trustworthy. Because not everyone is. Yes, scientists have lied to me in interviews! Repeatedly! They have exaggerated and tried to snow me with big words and bad statistics. They have aired their colleagues dirty laundry, revealed sensitive information, and given me enough beef to start a McDonald’s.

Because scientists, like politicians, like journalists, are human beings. We all have egos. We all make mistakes. None of us want to be flayed alive in the court of public opinion.

What if we make a mistake? Well, sometimes we do. But that’s why we have fact checkers. And it’s why many of us pursue “beats,” areas where we’ve written a lot, read a lot, interviewed a lot, and have a good expertise. For example, I have a Ph.D. in physiology and pharmacology, so wading through biomedical papers is easy for me. I’ve built a beat over time in human-wildlife interactions. In both cases, I keep an eye on papers in the field, I know the big names in the fields I work in most. I know the good journals that are specific for those fields beyond Science, Nature or Cell.

Yes, some journalists DO publish crap. All the time! Just like any profession has its crappy people, journalism does too. But the good ones? They try to set the bar. To inform the public of what they need to know—or maybe just to open the world to them. To tell the truth, even if it makes some people unhappy.

How do you know if the journalist you are about to talk to is working in good faith? Search for them. Read their previous work. Or ask them directly! Scientists ask me about my process and for clips all the time and I’m always happy to send them. You can ask me what the angle for my story is. Search me up on the internet and make sure I’m not writing for some tabloid about Batboy. I’m Googling you, why not Google me back?

I understand why you might not trust me. I get it. I wouldn’t trust me either, until I give you a good reason. But I hope, by explaining my process, maybe I have. Just a little. I’m not out here to play “gotcha.” I’m not out here to destroy trust in scientists or scientific institutions for fun or profit. I’m here to tell the truth about science, to share fascinating new insights about our bodies and the world we live in. To give people understanding. I think that’s something we can all agree with.

Where have you been?

• Is it reading the hot paleo tea about Tanis that everyone is talking about? I found it well written and engaging but I admit I had mixed feelings. Because…yes. Paleontology is mean. So is…almost every field of science if I’m honest. But…what if this falls out one way or another? It doesn’t change our understanding of how the dinosaurs died. Mostly it just serves to make the field look bad…and doesn’t really provide a way to make it better. I read this, and I was fascinated, but I also wondered, who does this serve?

• Did you know that astronauts get stuck in space all the time? THEY DO! My fav is the guy who ended up stuck in space because his country ceased to exist. He flew two more missions.

• It’s decorative gourd season, motherfuckers. A time-honored tradition.

• I ADORE this piece I got via Artologica on the branded trashcans of Madison Ave. I just want them to go all in. I want interlocking Cs on trashcans. I want the Louboutin can to have a discreet red sole.

Where have I been?

• At DragonCon! Where I served on seven panels about everything from psychedelic drugs to mind flayers to cicada to bacta-tanks! These people are my people and weekends with them are always a joy. I even had two people ask me to sign books! THANK YOU, you two made my week. :)

• My book is temporarily on Kindle Unlimited!!! GO GO GO you can read it for FREE! (I mean you can do that any time from the library and you should because libraries are great, but still.)

Anti-Discourse Actions

Look, discourse sucks, it’s full of people being miserable, shaming other people for not being as miserable as they are, and leaving us all with feelings of helplessness. Let’s take action instead.

• I attended my first meeting of Authors Against Book Bans and it was lovely! I’ve found out I can write to librarians to show my support and I am SO IN.

• I’m also pleased to say I’ll be working with the Freelance Solidarity Project soon to help them analyze some of their data on freelancing rates. I do adore a spreadsheet and I’m excited to dive in.

• Of course we are Voting Forward! I’m all about getting out that vote and we’ve got big goals!

*First, not all journalists do things the same way. There’s no one standard. Second, not all writing you read is journalism (and not all writing I WRITE is journalism because I need to eat and journalism doesn’t pay great, that’s a different post). A good chunk of it is not. Anything labeled “opinion,” for starters (which I write sometimes!). People who write for university or industry magazines also don’t really do traditional journalism and do let people see quotes before publication. Any press releases you read on EurekAlert, ScienceDaily, Phys.org, those got run by the scientist. This isn’t inherently a bad thing! It’s just important to keep in mind that these pieces are specifically about making the scientist, the uni, whatever, look good. This doesn’t mean they’re not true! It just means they work in a slightly different way.