Work with Your Public Information Officer

2021 ◽  
pp. 345-374
Author(s):  
Dennis Meredith

Researchers should understand who their public information officers (PIOs) are and what their level of expertise is. This understanding includes whether they are a marketing-oriented “sales rep” PIO or a more desirable PIO/journalist. PIOs in different institutions—academic, federal laboratory, government agency, and corporate—face different issues in terms of their institutional culture. There are many ways a PIO can help scientists with their communications needs, but a researcher needs to know how to assess their PIO in order to take advantage of that help. There are specific steps a researcher can take to help their PIO be maximally effective. The specific caveats researchers should be aware of when working with their PIO are, for example, in developing news releases, feature stories, and other content. There are also cautions to be observed when working with PIOs outside one’s institution.

2021 ◽  
pp. 336-344
Author(s):  
Dennis Meredith

This chapter will help you effectively communicate your meeting’s news to the media. To successfully manage media relations at a scientific meeting, a researcher should first visit press rooms at major scientific society meetings to see how they are run. Some steps to running a newsroom include identifying newsworthy papers and suggesting that scientists contact their public information officers to do news releases, as well as notifying the media of the meeting. The role of a conference press officer also includes organizing the newsroom to include all the facilities journalists will need, setting embargoes on presentations, and planning and conducting news conferences. Arranging interviews and making experts available for background discussion are also important steps.


Author(s):  
Earle Holland

Science writing at a university has to be one of the world's great jobs. If the institution is serious about its research, you're a kid in a candy store. In my case, at Ohio State University, with more than 3,500 faculty, the question is what to write about first—not where to look for stories. Big universities are that way, but the same rules apply for smaller places that are intent on doing great research. Let's begin with the basics. While public information officers at universities face a buffet of varying tasks—from covering boards of trustees' meetings to athletic scandals to student riots—the role of the science PIO is more focused: Concentrate on university research; explain what is new and why it is important to the public. Stated that way, the job seems simple, but science writers at a university may have to jump from astronomy to immunology to psychology to anthropology all in the same week. That represents a lot of intellectual gear shifting; but remember, the rules about reporting on research generally stay the same from field to field. What is the news? Why is it important? What is the context for the research? That is, what are the questions that drive it? Why should the readers care? And last, do the findings point us somewhere new? The only things that change from story to story are the researchers' language and the culture specific to their fields. Nearly every time I give a talk on university science writing—and there have been dozens—someone asks the classic question: How do you find your stories? The glib answer is “Everywhere;” but in truth, that's pretty accurate. Some people envision situations where top researchers have a “eureka” moment and then immediately get on the phone to the campus science writer to get the word out. Or perhaps the researcher's department chair or dean, ever attuned to their colleagues' work, is the one to pass along such news. I wish that were so; but sadly, it's more likely that researcher, department chair, or dean will never think about calling a writer until long after everything else is done.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 474-475
Author(s):  
Bethann Garramon Merkle ◽  
Marty Downs ◽  
Annaliese Hettinger

2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-159
Author(s):  
Marita Graube ◽  
Fiona Clark ◽  
Deborah L. Illman

This study examines the content of press releases from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Technology Centers (STCs) to determine how public information officers (PIOs) presented the outcomes of centers to journalists and the public. A total of 68 press releases were analyzed for type of news covered, visibility of centers and their funding agency, extent of inter-institutional cooperation in the issuance of releases, and players covered. Three-quarters of STC releases mentioned the center, but less than half mentioned the NSF STC program and one-quarter didn't mention the center name at all. PIOs covering the STCs mainly issued research-oriented press releases accredited to their own institution. There was a low level of inter-institutional cooperation, with 13% of press releases jointly issued. Compared to research results and institutional news, which together accounted for 82% of the news events, broader activities such as knowledge transfer, diversity enhancement, and education were much less visible.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 168-185
Author(s):  
Coren Dianne Paraon Martin ◽  
◽  
Felipe II Francisco Salvosa ◽  
Christine Aura Gracilla Exevea ◽  
Pauline Corsame Tome ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Avery

As Zika emerged as a major global health threat, public information officers (PIOs) at local public health departments across the United States prepared for outbreaks of the virus amid great uncertainty. Using the crisis and risk emergency communication (CERC) model to inform this study, PIOs (n = 226) at public health departments were surveyed to assess how community size, perceived control over health agenda, and other considerations such as resources and federal influences affected their satisfaction with Zika preparedness in their departments. These contextual, indirect factors may moderate planning efforts for Zika and other health emergencies and thus should be considered in crisis management and planning models such as CERC.


1992 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 261-267
Author(s):  
E. R. de Britto ◽  
S. A. S. Almeida ◽  
F. B. Gonçalves

Cedae, a Rio de Janeiro Government Agency, carefully planned and designed an ocean outfall to be built in Barra da Tijuca, one of the most valuable and beautiful dwelling regions of Rio de Janeiro. Due to the non-implementation of a public enlightening campaign, Cedae had to face radical community opposition to the outfall construction, fronted by very active persons, interested in personal promotion in a political elective period. The authors concluded that it is indispensable for any planned public work to put an action in enlightening public information program, based on fact and mutual understanding, to inform the community to be served about the various technical, economical and social questions involved and as to the facilities to be built.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document