{"id":804,"date":"2020-01-27T09:15:35","date_gmt":"2020-01-27T09:15:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.tees.ac.uk\/tjuthompson\/?p=804"},"modified":"2020-01-27T09:15:35","modified_gmt":"2020-01-27T09:15:35","slug":"breaking-news-only-i-could-make-a-2000-year-old-volcanic-eruption-all-about-me","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.tees.ac.uk\/tjuthompson\/2020\/01\/27\/breaking-news-only-i-could-make-a-2000-year-old-volcanic-eruption-all-about-me\/","title":{"rendered":"BREAKING NEWS: Only I could make a 2000 year old volcanic eruption all about me…"},"content":{"rendered":"
Now I\u2019ve done a fair bit of media work in the past (Shock! Academic known for being a bit of a show-off has history of being a bit of a show-off…) but nothing to the intensity of this past week. Our paper reinterpreting the context of death for victims of Vesuvius at Herculaneum<\/a> has finally come out in the journal Antiquity<\/a>. To be honest, this paper should have been out a year ago but it\u2019s been a bit of a battle to get it finished. Sometimes you have papers like that; they sit on your desk for months. You know it\u2019d just take a solid day of work to polish it off, but you just can\u2019t find the time. It\u2019s been frustrating, but we got there in the end with a final push from myself and the splendid Prof Oliver Craig at York<\/a>.<\/div>\n
space<\/span><\/div>\n
We\u2019ve always felt that this work would generate some interest, and one of the reasons we went with Antiquity for publication was because of their history of media engagement. And they (and their new Public Engagement and Press Administrator Adam<\/a>) have been very supportive over the past few weeks – pushing the paper through to an early publication, working up the press release and then dealing with a range of media outlets. And let\u2019s face it, anyone who has to deal with media-hungry professors probably needs some sort of medal…<\/div>\n
space<\/span><\/div>\n
I\u2019ve been talking and emailing with a real variety of outlets this week – independent science journalists (very friendly), Canadian TV (very polite), the Washington Post (very abrupt), the New York Times (very excited), I Fucking Love Science (not as sweary as they make out), Gizmondo (I think this makes me trendy now), various science websites (very method focused), the<\/em> Science website (very serious), Nature (very brief), and an experimental volcanologist (the mind boggles as to how one would make an experimental volcano because I\u2019m assuming he didn\u2019t get his PhD for using coke and mentos alone).<\/div>\n
space<\/span><\/div>\n
What\u2019s been really interesting is how obsessed pretty much all of the journalists have been with the fact that these individuals may have had a prolonged and awful death. Especially considering that despite what Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom suggests, you cannot outrun a volcano<\/a>. I\u2019ve been asked repeatedly how long it took for them to die, and several wanted specific details. It seems a bit grim and some of it has been quite crass and has made me a bit uncomfortable. But it\u2019s this morbid curiosity which they think will get the public\u2019s attention. And they\u2019re probably right. That doesn\u2019t mean that I\u2019ve gone along with this line of questioning. I\u2019ve been able to shift the focus of the conversations a bit to other aspects of the paper. We\u2019ll see how successful that was when the articles come out.<\/div>\n
space<\/span><\/div>\n
Before all of this kicked off, my wife (who is a far better academic than me, and therefore will not be introduced to my work colleagues lest they realise they should hire her instead) was on prime time TV talking about her research on children in the past. We\u2019ve basically bookended your week, and I\u2019m calling this the Axis of Awesome<\/span><\/em>, much to the quiet despair of my wife. Actually it\u2019s not quiet at all. In fact she\u2019s sighing and shaking her head at me as I write this now. Anyway, with this in mind, I thought it might be helpful to jot down some of the lessons we\u2019ve learned from years of media work.<\/div>\n
space<\/span><\/div>\n
    \n
  1. No one gives a shit about you or your work. This will be a harsh lesson to learn, but for me I learnt it early when it was made very clear to me that my sister was the favourite child. You need to get peoples interest and make them appreciate why what you\u2019ve done is important. It\u2019s not as easy as it seems. Our subjects seem inherently interesting, but finding that hook, that non-academic ‘why should I care\u2019, can be hard to find. It took three weeks of working with an editor before we finally hit upon a winning angle for a recent The Conversation article I co-wrote<\/a>. Despite the fact that the subject is, in fact, inherently interesting!<\/li>\n
  2. You\u2019ll frequently be misquoted. In my experience, I\u2019m paraphrased as much as directly quoted. And you won\u2019t get final say on the piece before it goes out. Especially if it\u2019s live. Obvs. So with this in mind, try to be clear and concise in what you say. And then-<\/li>\n
  3. Relax. Once the piece is out there there is nothing you can do, so you just have to hope for the best!<\/li>\n
  4. Start with why. To quote the TED talk<\/a>. And the book<\/a> (which is basically the TED talk but stretched out way too long and therefore underlines why it\u2019s best as just a TED talk). When you\u2019re asked about what you\u2019ve done, the tendency is to talk about the practical aspects and not the broader theme. \u201cTell me what you did in this project\u201d. Now, which do you prefer: \u201cWe took small bone fragments and subjected them to infrared spectroscopic analysis\u201d or \u201cWe studied the remains of these victims to better understand how they responded to the volcanic eruption\u201d. They probably responded with “Oh fuck – it\u2019s a volcanic eruption”, but you know what I mean.<\/li>\n
  5. Try to answer their question by repeating the question first. This really helps if they edit out the interviewer since it helps ensure that your comments still make sense.<\/li>\n
  6. Be yourself. But, like, a better version of yourself. It\u2019s great to humanise the science and the scientist, but they still want a recognisable scientist. I don\u2019t mean that in terms of dress code or anything, but rather someone who, in the very short time you\u2019ll be on tv or in the papers, convinces as an expert and someone who knows what they\u2019re talking about.<\/li>\n
  7. Don\u2019t hide your enthusiasm. If you\u2019re passionate about your subject, you\u2019ll sweep others along too. Even if your subject is super-boring. I\u2019m looking at you dental morphologists…<\/li>\n
  8. Remember that the journalists have a job to do, and it\u2019s not to help your career. They want to generate interest, views and clicks and will filter your work to help that. This is not a bad thing, but you can make the process less painful by framing your work with this in mind. They need a hook to generate that initial interest. In my case it\u2019s how these people died, not the nerdy method we used to work that out.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    And now you can check out a few of the interviews and articles below, to see how well I did in following my own advice:<\/p>\n