Read on Twitter
I’m tired of journalists reaching out for immediate comments or phone calls with same-day deadlines, only to appropriate the info & tell me after publication they used my ideas in writing their piece, but didn’t quote me or even mention my name.
That’s intellectual theft.
That’s intellectual theft.
Honestly, asking someone to drop whatever they’re doing, esp on emotionally stressful days like election, election results, inauguration, etc, to redirect time & energy immediately to write up stuff or speak to journalists should result in due credit of their time & labor.
It’s frankly unethical. It’s disrespectful too. I’ve given up limited time, energy & intellectual labor on too many occasions for things never going to print in the end, being printed without due credit at all, or being misquoted. Being asked to be contacted again is like wth.
Surely folks have been taught how to cite, give due credit, journalist ethics, etc. If someone’s not going to be quoted or mentioned, make it clear upfront. Don’t waste our time & energy (i.e. limited resources) to abuse it. We’re not background research databases. Google is.
So this means a thank you goes to journalists who actually do give due credit properly & recognize that asking people to drop everything to engage with them means acknowledging the contributions that involve intellect, time, labor that could otherwise be spent elsewhere.
If whatever we write/say is purely background information, tell us upfront. If it’s yet unclear what’ll be used, tell us upfront. Otherwise we operate on the assumption we’re going to be quoted or cited. Or mention our names at the end of a piece to acknowledge helpful sources.
Universities want to know of our public engagements for promotion/tenure evaluations, so not being able to share things bc our names aren’t on them at all makes that requirement impossible to meet. It’s extractive when due credit isn’t given at all. Esp so for junior academics.
It’s also good for transparency & accountability if names & designations of folks who’re consulted are mentioned in an article. Readers can learn more about our scholarship or contact us. Since our employers want to know about instances when we engage with media, please name us.
This seems to be a structural problem in journalism schools in failures of pedagogy on proper accreditation & acknowledgement, & journalistic outlets that don’t monitor things. It impacts researchers when we are invisibilized. Honestly, if you use our ideas, you can say our names https://twitter.com/michaelsessa3/status/1352449154686070788
Scholars are often accused of not engaging with the pubic/media, that academic knowledge is inaccessible, etc. But we do engage, we just don’t get named/quoted, so we can’t provide proof. So don’t accuse us of being insular when the journalism industry is structurally problematic
Many folks have also pointed out there are gender & race disparities in who is quoted/mentioned - women & BIPOC scholars are often not. This means some scholars are hypervisibilized while others are invisibilized in the media. This reinforces structural biases in society.
Scholars share knowledge freely regularly on various platforms, people ask to pick our brains all the time, but if we are providing info for a media piece, our input should be acknowledged somewhere, esp if it's instrumental to the framing of the piece or helpful to make a point.
I am getting loads of pushback from journalists now for airing the experiences of many academics. Many scholars have stopped engaging because it's a devaluation of their time/energy when they are invisibilized. Surely it's possible to say xyz people were consulted for a piece?
There is a protocol to mention who was consulted even if people aren’t quoted in a piece. But apparently our expertise, time, labor have no value & we should consider being contacted it’s own reward. https://twitter.com/tomjames206/status/1352676240205832198
https://twitter.com/tomjames206/status/1352676240205832198
Many scholars have stopped engaging with journalists because they feel they’re being exploited, which results in an over impoverishment of public discourse. It should be the norm to acknowledge major sources, not the exception to the rule. Many scholars have pointed out why, e.g. https://twitter.com/annujal/status/1352682602759598085
Scholars who started out as journalists also agree that acknowledging someone’s expertise & time is important practice. This is the point I’m trying to make here. Academia is accused of being insular because our engagements with media aren’t always made visible to the public. https://twitter.com/antarcticblues/status/1352699756162768898
Apparently we shouldn't engage with the media since we can be cut by editors or dropped if someone else made a similar point. If our expertise or ideas are imp in framing a piece or informing it, we should be mentioned. How does all of us saying 'no' help? https://twitter.com/gautham_t/status/1352423961003499520?s=20
We aren't asking for PR, just simple acknowledgment of our expertise, time, labor. We give plenty of free time to students, organizations, institutions, the public. But if we are interviewed for a piece, the expectation is that we will be acknolwedged. https://twitter.com/GloriaDickie/status/1352737762248687616?s=20
Clearly there are structural issues in journalism as to why people consulted/interviewed aren't mentioned. This won't be solved in a twitter discussion. But the appeal from academics is to acknowledge us if you have drawn from our ideas & expertise. https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1352669137408053250?s=20
It’s getting a bit much facing the ire of journalists now since apparently the system is that way so we must deal with it. We are being asked to get media literacy training (not all uni have this) or how to do media writing ourselves. But does this solve a structural problem?
As mentioned by this journalist, modeling better behavior would be good since academics aren’t obligated to give up free time for a piece. Clarity of communication (as I mentioned earlier too) is important. Posted with her permission:
Journalists attacking me to defend bad practice when we simply ask for acknowledgment of our expertise should probably recognize other academics are watching all too. Just sayin’
When it’s extractive without any mention or credit, it does feel like disrespect to academics. Using our ideas, info, expertise without any mention is a problem. Input should be acknowledged somewhere esp if it's instrumental to the framing of the piece or helpful to make a point
