By Laura Echevarria
NRLC Director of Media Relations
In many respects,
today's pro-life movement has an easier time dealing with the media than
it did 25, 20, even 10 years ago. We can convey our message to the media
through advanced technology that makes communicating easier and faster.
Today's media world revolves around computers, fax machines, cell phones,
and the Internet.
Yet for all the advances in technology we are still dealing with an audience
of reporters cynical by trade whose needs as professionals and as people
need to be kept foremost in mind.
For example, we need to understand reporters' viewpoints - - both their
own personal stories and what carries weight with them - - and the institutional
restraints and limitations they work under - - such as deadlines and limited
resources.
No one is going to be impressed if our message is conveyed in an amateurish
manner. Rather our case for the unborn must be presented with authority.
One way of doing this is to present documented up-to-date facts using the
latest technology available, which we discuss in detail below.
But prior to using technology is establishing a one-to-one personal relationship.
After all we have a solid, strong message - - we protect the vulnerable.
But the message doesn't travel very far if we -- the messengers - - don't
make ourselves friendly, understandable, easily accessible, and readily
available.
Personal Experiences
We argue our case on behalf of the vulnerable within
a far different media context than existed 25 years ago. Many of today's
reporters came of age after Roe v. Wade and, as can be expected,
they assume there is a constitutional right to abortion. This in
many respects may make our job harder because we are fighting an idea that
has become ingrained in the national psyche of many reporters.
Many of these same reporters never have had their personal opinions challenged
in a friendly, factual manner; that's our job. The truth is that a majority
of reporters do not hate us.
For the most part they don't understand us or our motivation. Remember,
to them, the idea that abortion is not a right is foreign. On the
plus side, keep in mind that not all reporters have bought the arguments
regarding euthanasia and the "right to die."
We have to accommodate - - take into account - - the mindset about abortion
in order to effectively present our message. What do I mean?
First, reporters are like everyone else. As much as they hate to say it
or even admit it, they do have an opinion. This opinion is reflected
in the stories they write or produce.
However, because the motivation may be subtle or even unconscious, they
may honestly not see the inherent flaws in their stories and resent having
them brought to their attention.
So when calling or writing a reporter or editor to point out an error, give
the reporter the benefit of the doubt: assume the reporter was not aware
of the facts and have those facts on hand when you call. Always be gracious
and give the reporter or editor the opportunity to acknowledge the error
and correct it.
Thorough Documentation
National Right to Life has a well-earned reputation
among reporters for thoroughly documenting what we say. We will go to great
lengths to verify a statement before any press release or press materials
are sent to reporters.
It can not be emphasized too much how important it is that reporters know
they can trust us. They may not agree with us, but they trust us - - an
invaluable asset.
Second, most reporters equate having balance in a story with breathing oxygen
- - their stories have to have it. Unfortunately, what they consider balance
is sometimes grossly unbalanced.
A fictional-but-not-far-from-the-truth-on- occasion example of such a story
would be an interview with the National Abortion Federation (NAF) about
the drop in the number of abortion providers.
The reporter would report the NAF interpretation and then provide his own
"spin" on why the numbers are dropping but there would be no pro-life
representative or even a representative of a medical school to provide an
alternative opinion to that presented by NAF.
Such a story would be seriously lacking balance. NAF is allowed to make
whatever assertions it wants without worry of refutation. One of the most
effective means of pointing out the lack of balance to the reporter is by
being up front.
"I didn't think your story was balanced," you would politely say,
and then explain how it did not give the views of both sides a fair airing.
Always remember that one of the reason pro-abortionists get the lion's share
of the ink is that they are perceived - - unfairly to be sure - - largely
as impartial "professionals." This shows up most clearly with
Planned Parenthood.
Third, keep in mind that some reporters have been involved in or have had
an abortion. For them the defense of abortion is personal. To acknowledge
that it is morally wrong or that the unborn baby is a human being would
be to acknowledge a personal failure or personal anguish.
What do you do? As mentioned above, we begin by establishing a personal
relationship and by always offering thoroughly documented arguments. Next
we must utilize the latest technology to convey that information. This will
go a long way toward winning the respect we need among reporters.
Many reporters - - and all younger ones - - are up on the latest technology.
This is another area where we need to be on their level, if at all possible.
NRLC uses the newest technologies to our advantage.
Fax machines are a necessity, as are computers. Today we have the ability
to communicate with reporters by phone, fax, or e-mail. We can post press
releases on our web site and soon we will be able to e-mail press releases
to individual reporters.
But none of this is a replacement for the personal touch. If you are a media
contact for your affiliate or the spokesperson, you should be available
as much as possible for reporters. Technology both allows you to be on call
wherever you may be and to reach reporters whose deadline is minutes away.
To be available you may need to invest in a cellular phone and a fax machine.
If you do not have a computer, check out used computers. (Many times you
can purchase a decent used computer for a fair price and often you can get
one donated by a member.)
You may or may not be able to afford an Internet service provider but there
are companies which provide e-mail programs that will allow you to receive
and send e-mail for free. The new technology can be made affordable and
the returns are well worth it.
Computers offer us the ability to keep track of reporter names, addresses,
phone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses. We can write press releases
and save them for future reference, send e-mail, use the Internet to find
news articles, and do research.
Cellular phones allow us to contact reporters while out of the office and
away from a phone and they help us keep in touch with co-workers. Fax machines
have been around for a while and are relatively inexpensive.
Many fax machines have a "polling" feature allowing you to send
press releases to many reporters without having to hand a fax to every one
of them. You can also receive hot-off-the-wire articles from reporters -
- invaluable when setting up interviews.
For the pro-life movement to meet today's challenges we have to be as technologically
advanced (as finances allow) and we have to meet reporters on a level that
allows them to understand us, what we believe, and why.
They are not the enemy. They, like many Americans, need the truth presented
to them clearly and concisely.
Reporters really do want to do a good job. They ask questions, they
think of angles, and they criticize. They report based on how they see things.
How they see the right to life depends a great deal on how they see you.