[meteorite-list] Fact Sheet - Possible Media Solution?

[MeteorHntr at aol.com]

Hello List,

I was greeted this morning  with a front page story in the Baltimore Sun.  
While it could have been  worse, it made me realize I need to do something 
to help writers focus on the  facts and the real story and not to slide over 
and just use the more sensational  answers or comments given in an 
interview. 

Also, some reports do  actually attempt to do more research on their own 
before writing, and sometimes  they interview amateurs that are even better at 
saying not-so-smart things like  those of us with experience are also so 
good at doing.

As Darryl  mentioned the other day, reporters tend to resist writing from a 
Press Release  and usually will work to manufacture their own story from 
the ground up based on  what they uncover in their interviews.  

So maybe a solution might  be a "Fact Sheet" I can have preprinted to give 
to the reporters at each  interview. 

Of course, if I am not asked a certain question by a  reporter, there is a 
greater chance I won't offer that fact in my  interview.  Or if I do, it can 
be out of the context of the interview and  the reporter might not 
understand why what I said was important. 

Time is  often a restraint, both in the interview and in the writing to 
meet a deadline,  so it isn't always the reporters fault that they don't get 
around to asking the  questions that would paint a clearer picture.

Maybe a Fact Sheet could be  in a F.A.Q. fashion?  Or just stated as Facts, 
billet style?

So, I  would like some help from you guys. 

I would like some suggestions as to  what should be included in a fact 
sheet, so that when handed to the reporter,  they can refer to it during and/or 
after the interview as they might  need.

For starters, I can list my name and contact information, that  would be 
good. (Nothing worse than one's name being spelled wrong in the  paper.)

I can list my correct age (which is 43 not 42 as erroneously  stated in 
today's story).  Which does make you pause, if a reporter can't  get someone's 
age correct, is it any wonder that other aspects of the story  might get 
skewed a little (or a lot) one way or another.  However, in the  case of Robert 
Haag in the Astronomy story a few years back, they listed him as  40 years 
old and not 50 years old.  A "typo" I am sure! ;-)  (Or as  someone hinted, 
maybe a little slice of Zagami under the table might have helped  that typo 
to not be spotted in time!)

How about "Why are meteorites are  valuable to science?" Q, with an 
appropriate and pithy answer.  After all,  if it wasn't for the science, we really 
wouldn't have much in the way of higher  demand for many of our meteorites. 

Of course, there is a collectors  market.  And while the words "treasure" 
and "hunter" together can give a  negative connotation, they can give an 
adventurous one as well.  And we all  have to admit, while it is not all just 
for the money, that does play at least a  part in why those of us in the field 
do what they do.  How can the fact  that we are also hunting for the source 
of knowledge, not just cash be  stated?

I suppose I could go through all the media stories I have seen  lately and 
pull out the errors and try to find out why the reporter might have  got the 
reporting of it wrong.  Then find a way to stress, in the Fact  Sheet, what 
is the correct take should be on it.

For example, after  talking about how most meteorites are "common" and 
don't offer all that much  valuable new information, others do.  I went on that 
some are far more  desirous to researchers than others, and to collectors as 
well. In that context  I mentioned that "meteorites can be worth from 5 
cents a gram up to over $1,000  dollars a gram." 

There seemed to be some negative reaction from the York  newspaper's story 
here on the M-List where that range was mentioned.  Well,  now the Baltimore 
reporter (who was in the same interview as the York reporter)  decided to 
drop the range I had given and just somehow averaged it all out to:  
"hundreds of dollars per gram" instead.  Probably shorter and easier that  way for 
him.  I am sure his editor appreciated it being shorter, in fact,  maybe it 
was his editor that shortened it for him.

Of course, factually  both reporters are not incorrect as to the values, 
and doing a search on any  dealer website and on ebay shows both of those 
statements to be factually  correct.  However, maybe I can state that a fact on 
my Fact Sheet that  majority of all meteorites are worth from $0.20 to $2 
per gram.  And that  certain factors determine why they might be worth more or 
less than that  range.

Any other suggestions?

Oh, I would imagine Ruben might  suggest that I add that "Fossils are not 
found in meteorites."

Any  others?

Steve Arnold
of "Meteorite Men"  

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323031x1201367232/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JulystepsfooterNO62)