A guide for Pagans and other religious-minded folks.

The press often does a bad job reporting on our faiths and practices. That’s not really a controversial statement, that’s just the way it is. That shouldn’t stop you from talking to the press, but it does mean you should keep some things in mind when you do.

Reporters usually (but not always) have a certain angle already planned out before they call you. In some cases, the story had to be “pitched” before they could proceed — or it was editorially handed to them. Now, that could change after interviewing you, but it isn’t likely. If you are a Pagan, Polytheist, practitioner of an indigenous or traditional faith, or are part of a religious minority outside the mainstream, expect the reporter to have preconceived notions and biases about who you are and what you do. This is increasingy true today — as many religion-beat reporters are coming up from jobs at niche Christian outlets. Connected to the above point — most journalists don’t get religion, and even journalists who do “get” religion usually understand it through the lens of Christianity. In many cases their “research” into your faith will be a quick Google search and scroll through Wikipedia (or worse, biased books or articles they read back when they worked for Christianity Today). This is often true even for “good” journalists. Expect your conversations to get boiled down to a few (at best) pull-quotes. Further — expect anything you said that was sensational or controversial (to them) to get quoted. I’m not telling you to hide what you are, or what you do, I’m just letting you know. Reporters are looking for “sticky” pull-quotes and lines that will make their piece jump out to the average reader. Virtually no journalist will let you approve quotes/articles ahead of time. It simply isn’t done. So don’t expect the power to “veto” an article you don’t like. That’s just standard industry practice. Also — as my friend (and professional journalist) Stephanie Ivy Whiteside points out: “If you want something of the record, explicitly state that. Don’t assume that because it’s before or after the ‘official’ part of the interview, it won’t get used.” In most cases, the journalist is not interested in starting a “source” relationship with you. There’s a chance they might call you again for another story — but the pace of journalism today usually means you are forgotten by tomorrow’s deadline. Some of the “old media” pros will have a rolodex with some folks they’ve built a years-long relationship with, but that is becoming a rare thing these days. Most journalists will not care about side-issues, pet peeves, or agendas outside of the scope of the story. You can bet that most of that will end up on the cutting room floor. That sounds harsh — but there it is. However, they may pretend to care, leading us to… Some journalists will lie to you to get the story. Or, should I instead say, misrepresent the tone of the story in order to get you talking. Now, not every journalist will do this — but often stories for the “weird” section will be overseen by individuals of few scruples. They want dirt, and they don’t really care how they get it. They just want to write their 50th listicle and go home so they can drink their sorrows away. Trolling the media might SEEM like a good idea, but it never really gets you what you want. I know it might appear like journalists are stupid, but most of them aren’t. They went to college, they, you know, read the Internet, they can often tell when you are going for the “lulz.” Now- they may decide to print your “hilarious” “facts” about your faith, but don’t pat yourself on the back too hard. Being purposely shocking only works so many times — and often trolling backfires in unforseen ways. Just ask the Internet. Everything I said above? It is getting worse. Since, oh, let’s say 2006, traditional journalism has been in a state of what smart people call “disruption.” This means lots of people are losing their jobs, time to work on articles has been declining, content mills are the norm, and nobody really knows what journalism will look like in ten years (Will Facebook absorb all content? Maybe!). This means that all the short-cuts journalists make to hit deadline are now super-charged. In many cases, outlets won’t even bother contacting you — they’ll just quote and re-quote the one that did. So — in many cases — you really may have only one shot at getting heard. So make it count.

Is there a solution? Maybe! Grow niche and community journalism outlets, so that there’s more for the modern journalist/content-creator to go on when they research. Grow journalism outlets accountable to the community, and dependant on community support (like The Wild Hunt!). Create an ecosytem of cooperative outlets that can start to push the narrative, instead of relying on endless editorial “hot takes” from people building their personal brands. We can’t stop or solve the current situation by hoping they get better — we can only do something by relying more on our own resources.