Media Matters

by cherylthomas ~ September 22, 2008

At the meeting between the government and the empirical legal research community in December 2007, one recommendation that emerged was that more needed to be done to publicise the results of empirical legal research. Whenever the issue of media coverage comes up, researchers always seem to complain that no matter how much they try to explain their research to the media, the media always get it wrong or twist their findings.  But I would argue that we sa legal researchers actually do not do enough to communicate our work to the media (and often to government policy makers) in ways that ensure they  understand and see the relevance of our work. 

How can we help to improve media coverage of legal research? 
If government-funded, this should be a joint effort by both researchers and government – but it must start with the researcher. 

What do researchers need to do? 
First and foremost, we as researchers must be able to convey our findings in a comprehensible way to the media – and to appreciate the requirements of media coverage.  A few basic questions every researcher should be thinking about when publishing empirical legal research include:  

1. What is the single most important message to come out of the research? 
For instance, can you imagine a headline for your research? Can you briefly summarise the main findings in language that is understandable and interesting to a wider public?  

2. What do these findings mean for the public? 
Far too often we write and speak only in terms that the legal research community can understand. But if empirical legal research is supposed to be about “law in the real world”, we need to be able to convey what we do in terms that people living in the real world will understand.  

3. How might the findings be misinterpreted or sensationalised? 
There’s no point in complaining later on about media misrepresentation if you haven’t anticipated this and made every effort to make sure that it doesn’t happen.  And finally, researchers need to be available to the media. Of course, some researchers may be particularly uncomfortable facing the press, but we must remember that the media will want to hear from the person who did the research – not just a government spokesperson.  It would be interesting to hear from researchers about whether they feel they need guidance in dealing with the media.

What does government need to do? 
If the research is funded by a government department, then the government also must take responsibility for ensuring that the findings are conveyed as widely as possible and that the message is as clear as possible. Of course, not every piece of government-funded legal research will have immediate media interest. But it is not good enough for the press office to simply issue a press release saying the research has been published and expect the media to pick up the story.   The press office needs to ensure that the right journalists know about the research.  It also needs to work with researchers to make sure they are prepared to speak to the media.  Press officers should not assume that researchers all have experience dealing with the media. 

Good (and bad) practice.  
It would be interesting to hear from researchers who feel the did not have a good experience in publishing government-funded empirical legal research.  But I’ll give one example of good practice. Last year when MOJ published my research, the research was widely and (crucially) correctly reported in the media. The potential for misleading reporting was very high, but the accurate reporting was due in large part to the way MOJ approached publication. Well ahead of publication, an internal steering group was convened of government officials in and outside MOJ affected by the research, as well as the MOJ press office. We met several times.  Each time I presented the research and we worked through how to make the large, complex study accessible and how to avoid misrepresentations.  When it was published, the media had access to both a minister (to answer policy questions) and myself (to explain the research).  Journalists were also given extra time to read the report before publication. 

Legal affairs correspondents.
And what about the role of the legal affairs correspondents?  I’ve certainly found that most are very well-informed and interested in identifying new legal stories.  But why are there only a few academics who always seem to speak about legal issues in the media?   It would be really helpful to hear from legal affairs correspondents about what we as researchers can do to improve media coverage of our work: How do you view legal researchers?  Are we accessible and aware of media needs? Would it help, for instance, if there was an independent group that could put you in touch with an appropriate legal researcher for specific stories?   

Professor Cheryl Thomas, Centre for Empirical Legal Studies, UCL Faculty of Laws