Preparing for the Media

	Identify a spokesperson from the task force. It should be someone who has a grasp of the issues and who is comfortable with the media. It helps if they can also speak in short sentences!
	Collect the names, phone number(s), fax number(s), and email addresses of reporters specializing in environmental news and religion news. The same information for the editors of these sections should also be gathered. A phone call before and after a fax can help make sure it gets noticed -- and covered.
	Let clergy and other church leaders be featured as a group. This will help give you a legitimacy no amount of technical expertise can replace.
	Give a voice to victims or potential victims in the neighborhoods affected or threatened, especially any disabled racial or ethnic groups that might have difficulty getting their story out.
	News releases should be double-spaced, not more than 2 pages, with a contact name, title, organization and phone number at the top. The point of your story or a human interest angle should appear in the very first sentence.
	Never try to get more than three points across during an interview or press conference. Know what your primary points are, make them right away and repeat them several times.
	If you "flub" an answer or comment while being taped for a TV or radio interview, pause for a second, say you're starting over, pause again, and proceed. This will make editing out your error very easy back at the studio. Remember that the media wants to make you look good so they'll look good. You don't have to be perfect.
	Say "I don't know," or "We'll have to look into that and get back to you," rather than making up an answer or saying "no comment."
	Morning newspapers and evening television newspeople are best contacted in the morning to avoid the late afternoon deadline crunch. Afternoon newspapers can be contacted the day before you wish the article to appear.
	If the story you're dealing with keeps changing (see "Responding to the 'Official' Response"), don't accuse others of lying, but point out the shifting nature of the "facts" or the explanation and call for clarification.

Responding to the "Official" Response

In dealing with employees, corporations or first response teams, you will find some are very casual or matter of fact in their dealings with chemicals. This can be good in an emergency when panic will only make things worse, but casual attitudes can also form a well-paved road leading directly to disasters that could have been prevented. And they could lead to denial of responsibility.

On the other hand, you will find some people in the field are very conscientious, cautious and strict in their procedures. It's best not to presume either attitude is present until you have the facts. Some "watchdog" agencies have become overworked and understaffed. Some corporations pride themselves on meeting or exceeding government standards.

What follows below is a description of what may be called the "denial syndrome." It is our hope that you won't encounter a corporation or agency that behaves anything like this, but this is a repeated pattern in too many technology-caused disasters. The exact order is rarely followed, but the information is arranged in roughly the order you can expect.

	1. The responsible entity denies that any problem exists. Sometimes the spokesperson honestly doesn't know a crisis has developed, other times those involved are simply buying time to put on a better front.
	2. The agency or corporation acknowledges there was a problem, but claims it was solved some time ago.
	3. The entity admits there is a problem, but blames others, such as subcontractors, suppliers, customers, previous owners or users of the property.
	4. The entity claims the problem is not as reported, or says it is already being handled adequately.
	5. The agency or corporation admits a problem, but says it can't afford the clean up or properly respond due to government restrictions, failures of others, etc.
	6. The entity enters into long court battles over who is responsible, how clean up will proceed, how it will be paid for, and what will be done with the material removed, also, whether complainants are really sick, whether their illnesses were actually caused by the spill, etc.

Any one of these statements may actually be true. But if you notice the official story is changing and moving through these stages, remember the best policy is to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

Call attention to the shifting story. Investigate all claims with the help of independent experts, especially any claims that try to downplay the event, with the understanding that sometimes events really aren't as dangerous as they first appear. Advocate for the voiceless and the innocent, but do not prejudge any parties as "guilty."