Tips for Media Engagement

PCGVR Director of Research Dr. Jessica Beard took part in a webinar titled “Shaping the Narrative: Ethical and Effective Media Management,” hosted by the Research Society for the Prevention of Firearm-Related Harms, who asked for responses to the questions below. We are sharing these extended responses in the hope that they will help others strengthen their practice, minimize harm and advance gun violence prevention.

How can students and early-career researchers build confidence and prepare for media engagement when discussing sensitive or emotionally charged topics like firearm injuries?

• Stick with what you know. Speaking about something outside your wheelhouse will ruin your credibility. Request a list of questions ahead of time, explaining that you want to be properly prepared. If they ask something that is outside your wheelhouse, pivot to what you know.

• Prepare your points. Have two or three confident messages that you can pivot to if you are feeling unsure or under pressure.

• Know that imposter syndrome is common. Many high-profile researchers you see in the news have felt (and perhaps continue to feel) this same lack of confidence. But journalists are coming to you because you are the expert, you have important insights to offer.

• Humanize the numbers. If you are speaking about statistics, reference the fact that each number represents a human being and their trauma. In research, we can speak very clinically; with the media, we must speak with compassion.

• If you sense political motivation, set the record straight. Explain that it is not your desire or your role to advocate for or against a particular political party. You simply want to prevent firearm injuries and death, something that has broad support on both sides of the aisle.

• Acknowledge the discomfort. It can be helpful to acknowledge that conversations around gun violence are inherently charged with emotion, while still grounding your responses in public health.

• Know your audience. Has the journalist previously shared opinions that might dispute what you are talking about? Prepare your speaking notes accordingly. If you can anticipate what they will say or ask you, you can better ensure that the conversation remains informative, rather than combative. Lean on your institution’s communications team to help you with this.

What are the most common mistakes researchers make when interacting with the media, and what practical steps can help prevent them?

• Ditch the shop talk. Avoid terms like “qualitative” vs “quantitative” research. For most members of the public, it’s just “research.” Instead of saying, “Our study included a sample size of 100 firearm-injured patients,” try something like, “To answer this question, we interviewed 100 people who had been injured by gunfire.”

• Don’t speak beyond your expertise. Sometimes the best answer is, “I’m not the best person to answer that, but I can speak about this,” or, “We hope to answer that question in future research.”

• Ask for questions ahead of time. The journalist may or may not provide them, but it never hurts to ask.

• Be accessible. Respond to interview requests as quickly as possible, even if you are not immediately available to speak. If you don’t get back to a journalist in a timely fashion, they may see you as unreliable and not reach out the next time.

• Slow down. Speaking too quickly can make your messages less impactful, especially for live TV and radio interviews.

• Be concise. Deliver your messages as succinctly as possible. This makes it easier for the journalist to quote you and for the audience to understand your points.

• Don’t assume hostile intent. The gotcha moments you see on TV shows are actually rare. Think of journalists as collaborators with constraints like deadlines and newsroom policies. 


What strategies help ensure communication about firearm-related harms is accurate, ethical, and non-stigmatizing—particularly when discussing communities most affected?


• Provide context. Talk about the role of systemic racism, lack of funding, and disinvestment in people and public health.

• Counteract the ‘inevitability’ narrative. Point out that gun violence is never inevitable; it is always preventable. And there are solutions we know to work.

• Talk about solutions. Familiarize yourself with causes and solutions. Use words like “prevention” and “solutions” in your remarks. Job training prevents gun violence, limiting access to firearms prevents gun violence, community violence interventions prevent gun violence, cleaning and greening of our neighborhoods prevent gun violence.

• Don’t get sucked into the statistics. Journalists often want to talk about the numbers — gun violence is up, gun violence is down, X number of people were shot this year compared to last year. Communicate the humanity behind these numbers. With the consent of research participants, share anecdotes whenever possible.

• Suggest lived-experience experts. PCGVR has an excellent program called Survivor Connection that connects journalists with lived-experience experts. Spread the word about this program and encourage its use by journalists who interview you.

• Use people-first and harm-reduction language. If the reporter says, “people who live in violent communities,” use something like, “People experiencing risk of firearm injury…” in your response. 


How can researchers communicate findings clearly while minimizing oversimplification or misinterpretation, and what is the best way to address misinformation if it occurs?


• Prepare your points. Prepare 3-5 points that you really want to communicate. Think about the news outlet’s audience and, to the extent that you are aware, the reporter’s intentions.

• Recognize the importance of brevity. The average TV news story is between 1.5-2.5 minutes; the average digital or print story is around 400-600 words; and radio pieces are typically shorter than a minute. Remember, to the general public, your methods don’t matter. The findings and their implications do. By being succinct, you aren’t necessarily oversimplifying; you are making your research more accessible.

• Prevent misinformation. Listen to the reporter’s questions — are they informed or misinformed? Clarify as needed. Debunk harmful narratives ahead of time so the journalist can avoid repeating the mistakes of others.

• Advocate for corrections and/or clarifications. If there is a mistake in the journalist’s interpretation of your interview or research paper, follow up with them personally, and with compassion, as soon as you notice it and ask that it be corrected. If you don’t hear back, call the main phone line for the newsroom and express your concerns. This is not only important for your professional integrity, but for the impact on gun violence prevention.


Media attention often centers on rare, high-profile firearm events. How can researchers work with journalists to elevate coverage of more common firearm-related risks and prevention strategies?


• Develop relationships with reporters. If you have a reputation as someone who is media friendly, journalists will be more open to you coming to them with story ideas. This way, you can be proactive in sharing helpful narratives, rather than only reactive to harmful narratives.

• Hand stories to reporters on a platter. Reach out when you have a story to share between these spikes of sensational coverage. And when there is one of those rare events, offer a follow-up story that includes critical context. Be prepared with key research findings, infographics, and anecdotes. At the same time, don’t minimize the severity or trauma of the event being covered.

• Context, context, context. Offer context whenever and wherever possible. Even if you can’t get in touch with a reporter directly, comment on their online story or social media post, offer your expertise or direct them to research that provides important context. Or send an email to the newsroom tips inbox. Emphasize solutions and preventability. Again, you can lean on your comms team to assist.


When researchers encounter stigmatizing or harmful media narratives, how can they intervene constructively without damaging relationships with journalists?


• Correct gently. Rather than going directly to the reporter’s bosses, you may reach out with a message like, “I just read with great interest your story about gun violence. Thank you for covering this important story. You mentioned that . That’s a common misunderstanding. What the evidence actually sows is . I’d be happy to speak with you about it.”

• Remember that journalists do not want to cause harm. Harm often stems from age-old journalism practices, deadlines, demands from supervisors, and length requirements. Instead of attacking their work, point out that you can see that they care about this issue, but that research has shown the ways these stories are most often presented are actually harmful to the people and communities who are most impacted by firearm violence. Point them to the PCGVR website for information about reporting on gun violence through a public health lens.

• Acknowledge the potential to do good. At PCGVR, we believe that by changing the way stories of gun violence are shared in the media, we can actually prevent violence. This is a compelling argument for journalists, many of whom want to be part of the solution.

• Ask how you can be helpful. Acknowledge the fact that it must be difficult to put together a television story about gun violence without showing images of the crime scene or graphic videos. Ask if you could help fill those gaps. Perhaps you have some infographics that could help illustrate facts through a public health lens. Make yourself available as an additional voice for future stories. Ask for a coffee meeting so you can learn more about their job and how you can help them tell these stories.