Cultivating Relationships: The Key to a Successful Media Presence

By Laura Echevarria

Media organizations have the mission of communicating information to large numbers of people. Sounds simple enough, but why does the information pro-lifers disseminate to the media often go into the system one way but come out so very different?

There are many reasons why this happens, but there are two main explanations. Just as every person is unique and has his or her own perspective and opinions, there are many ways to take in or understand or perceive a story.

Equally important is that each reporter who writes a story for print or broadcast brings his or her life experiences to the story. In other words, like all of us, they filter the message through a kind of grid.

Although the electronic media is in theory regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, news organizations are essentially free agents--money-making corporations that rely on advertising revenue to remain solvent. Bigger news outlets even sell stock in their companies.

They are required to turn a profit, not necessarily to be "fair" in their coverage. (Reporters will also tell you that "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder.)

News organizations, however, will tell you that they are being objective.

But even when this is blatantly untrue, this "requirement" is self- imposed by the news organizations on themselves. There is an industry-wide ethic that journalists are taught in journalism school which states that unless you are working for a news agency which purports to convey a special interest, you should report both sides of an issue in a neutral and impartial fashion.
However, this duty to be objective/neutral is a should, rather than a must. Our job is remind them of this duty--it cannot be demanded of news organizations.

Bias--Conscious and Unconscious--and What to Do about It!

Pro-lifers commonly complain about a pro-abortion bias in most news rooms.
It is true that there are many instances in which the pro-life side of a story remains untold, or--even worse--is misrepresented. But why?

Occasionally, a reporter's bias occurs solely because a reporter is overtly pushing an agenda. Though it has occurred very rarely, reporters have called and admitted to calling our "anti- choice" office only because an editor required it.

A far more common reason for bias is education. This can be either a general lack of information about abortion, or, conversely, a successful campaign by our opponents to "educate" reporters to see the issue in their terms.

This is not hard to understand, since they may well run in the same circles. By contrast, based on certain comments, it is reasonable to assume that most reporters literally don't know anyone who is pro-life, except, at best, in a superficial way.

What else besides an overt bias or familiarity (or lack thereof) explains coverage we would label as biased? Sometimes what we perceive as bias is not deliberate but the result of the way stories are put together, edited, and presented.

For instance, it is not uncommon for editors to change parts of stories that reporters have written without telling them. Changes that misrepresent us may occur because an editor doesn't understand the pro-life movement, current or past.

Many news reports characterize pro-life opposition to euthanasia in such a way as to make it sound as if "anti-abortionists" recently discovered the euthanasia issue. In some instances, the reporter may know that our founding statements encompassed equal opposition to abortion and euthanasia, but the editor does not.

Sometimes a story comes out disappointing because a reporter sees a different angle as more newsworthy. For instance, let's say a reporter is working on a story about partial-birth abortion.

While interviewing a pro-abortion representative, the reporter is introduced to a woman who had a partial-birth abortion. Without the reporter necessarily deliberately pushing a pro- abortion agenda, the emphasis quickly turns from a story about the legislative debate to the personal story of the ostensible reason why the woman had the abortion. In the process the pro- life interview/perspective is dropped entirely.

Having said all that, what is the best way to change coverage of the abortion issue and to address bias? By building relationships with reporters.

Building Relationships/Becoming a Source

When a reporter knows you, it's easier for him or her to see you as a reasonable, concerned citizen who cares deeply about your community. Maybe the reporter sympathizes with the pro-life movement or maybe he doesn't.

But if he comes to see you as a human being, he will come to a better understanding of why you believe the way you do.

When reporters clearly do not understand our motivations for opposing abortion, it is very difficult to get to first base.Too often, they see legalized abortion as the law and respond: who are you to argue otherwise?

To them it is not a matter of right or wrong, moral or immoral. To these reporters, it is a matter of whether or not something is legal. If it is legal, then it must be okay (remember the saying "the law teaches"?).

This is when getting to know a pro-lifer helps a reporter to understand the why behind what we do. This doesn't necessarily mean you have to go out for coffee every Tuesday, or that you must invite a reporter over for dinner at your home every couple of weeks.

But it does mean that if you are the media contact for your chapter, you should keep in touch with all reporters who cover the right-to-life issues.

Maybe you can invite key reporters out for coffee when you need to discuss your organization's role in an upcoming event such as the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In the process, you are educating reporters about the horror of abortion and its negative impact on our society.

Maybe, in searching the Internet, you come across information you think a reporter might be interested in seeing--forward it to her via e-mail. This is something else to remember: always keep contact information on reporters up-to-date. Include fax numbers, cell phones, pagers, and e-mail. Respect any restrictions a reporter places on the contact information she gives you (e.g., don't fax after 10:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m.).

Sometimes building a relationship is as simple as extending a helping hand on something entirely unrelated. I recently helped a scheduler with one of the networks with contact information regarding local private elementary schools. Don't force the issue; just make yourself available to be helpful in whatever capacity you can. Be yourself.

As the media person for National Right to Life, I'm on call 24/7. If you're the media person for your chapter, then you should be as well.

Understand, the likelihood of you getting a call at 6:30 a.m. from CBS Radio (this really happened to me!) is highly remote. More commonly a reporter for your local paper may run across something on the wire Sunday afternoon that she believes would make a great story in Monday's paper.

She's in time bind. She needs to talk to someone Sunday, not Monday. The local Planned Parenthood probably has a paid employee whose job it is to be on call for press inquiries. But do you have a [likely unpaid] representative?

Now, you may ask, what does this have to do with building relationships?

Everything! When reporters know they can count on you in a pinch, they come to trust that you'll be there when they need you. And they very much appreciate and respect this.

When something big happens, they are far more likely to turn to you for comment than someone else. In addition, because the reporter respects you and the relationship he or she has with you, the story probably is going to be reported in a far more balanced manner. It's human nature.

These two simple steps--actively keeping in touch with reporters and making yourself available to reporters--will go a long way toward developing the productive relationships you'll need to have a good media presence in your community.