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

[cdtucson at cox.net]

Steve, 
Your fact sheet is an excellent idea. It brings to mind a couple of publications from ASU called "have you seen a meteorite: and another by U of A's David Kring called "Meteorites and their properties"(1998). Both are very small brochures that give all of the basic facts and even journalists could read it within a few minutes. I have a copy of each if you'd like to see them. 
I think you are correct in everything you do. After all no matter what you say can be disputed. 
5 cents to over $1000. per gram is a good range but certainly misleading. Unless you add a bunch more words and make your point even longer. For example. I doubt that you will ever buy a fall for 5 cents and I believe the record price ever paid for any meteorite was NWA 011. It's initial offering was from $119,000. to $58,000. per gram back in 2003 before pairings were found..
But if you disclose this info you may well get robbed while out in the field. 
And as for Rubens fossils? We are looking for meteorites with fossils so why not just say it? So, if you find a rock covered with fusion crust and it has fossils I will be happy to take it off your hands. Haha. Although unless it hits someone on the head it will likely be discarded unless we do inform the public of this fact that they may be out there. Like Elton always says " don't ignore the Science". 
Carl
 --
Carl or Debbie Esparza
IMCA 5829
Meteoritemax


---- MeteorHntr at aol.com wrote: 
> 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)
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list