1. Multiple press release procedures
James Gillies, InterAction 9 October 2006

2. Interactions
Report of sub-committee working group
Subject: Multiple Press Releases
First published 2005
Revised 2006
Working Group members:
Barbara Gallavotti [INFN]
James Gillies [CERN]
Peter Barratt [PPARC]
Issue
The working group was requested to study the issues surrounding joint, international press releases, with the objective of establishing a mechanism that would credit all partners and institutions involved in specific projects/experiments without creating and issuing multiple press releases. It was thought that this would reduce the number of daily press releases received by journalists, and in particular reduce the number of releases on the same story but from different sources.

3. Considerations
1. It was not thought that ‘multiple’ releases on the same subject but from different [international] partners/collaborators was necessarily a problem for individual journalists in partner countries.
Indeed, it was considered that they may actually be useful in providing a choice of quotes and slightly differing national angles, albeit retaining the core message/story, whilst providing additional background information, all of which would reduce the research required by the individual journalist.
3. However, the group agreed that some form of limitation and control should be introduced in order to avoid mass duplication and information overload.
4. In respect of internet news services such as Alpha Galileo and EurekAlert, etc, the group agreed there was no benefit to be gained in posting multiple releases to these outlets.
In this situation it was thought that posted releases should be restricted to and the sole responsibility of the source laboratory/institute, but with caveats [see later].
6. Similarly the issuing source should be the only laboratory/institute that posts to Interactions.org website.

4. Recommendation
The working group took all of these considerations into account in making the following recommendations:
1. The source laboratory should issue the press release to its home national media.
2. The source laboratory should be the only one to post the release to internet news services including Interactions.org.
Individual partners/collaborators should adopt the practice of issuing press releases to their respective national and regional media, giving a national flavour to the story for benefit of national audiences. Experience has shown that journalists are more likely to cover a story that has national involvement, and potentially in greater depth.

5. Whilst this recommendation was broadly accepted by members of the Interactions communications group at its meeting at INFN, Frascati, on 10/11 March 2005, there remains one issue to be resolved which was not discussed at the meeting.
Namely, in the case of large countries [US, France, Italy, UK, etc] with key national media plus several collaborating laboratories, then internal agreement among the laboratories/funding agencies may be required in order to agree which organisations disseminate the release.
It is the recommendation of this working group that in the case of the US the source laboratory takes the lead in issuing releases to key national media, with appropriate consultation with the funding agencies, and that, should other US laboratories be involved in the project, then they restrict the dissemination of their release to regional/localised media.
In the case of Italy and the UK, then key national media should be the remit of INFN/PPARC whilst local and regional media are covered by other national partner laboratories involved. Similar procedures should be put in place for other countries.

6. Process (revised 26 July 2006, 9 October 2006)
1. The source laboratory/institute should advise collaborating partners of the intent to issue a press release at least two weeks in advance of the proposed date whenever possible.
2. In agreeing the date of issue consideration should be reached on the exact timing of the release in order to align different time zones with the media deadlines of any particular country. Embargoes can be employed in such situations.
3. The source laboratory/institute would be responsible for producing the initial first draft of the press release.
4. This should incorporate a ‘boiler plate’ paragraph at the end that qualifies and acknowledges all collaborative partners and institutes involved in the project/experiment by their full name and country of origin where possible and reasonable.

7. 5. This ‘boiler plate’ statement should also specify national press
5. This ‘boiler plate’ statement should also specify national press officers and provide full contact details. This would facilitate journalists from partner countries establishing a national angle or quote even if the collaborating partner in that country did not issue an individual release. Where large numbers of partner institute are involved, a full list should be included via a link the electronic version(s) of the release.
6. The source laboratory/institute will make clear which parts, if any of the initial first draft are considered to be immutable.
7. Once the initial draft release has been prepared it should be circulated to collaborating partners in order for them to have the opportunity to produce a national version of the story.
8. Partner organisations could then craft a ‘national’ variant of the release, in consultation with funding agencies in the case of laboratories, to incorporate quotes from their particular scientists and officials and emphasise the national contribution to the project.

8. The national version should include the ‘boiler plate’ paragraph confirming ALL partners involved in the project plus all partner press officer contacts and details. Where large numbers are involved, there should be a single entry point per country, and this may be done via a link in the electronic version.
Where applicable, the national version should also include at least one quote from the source laboratory to add credence and bring out the international, collaborative nature of the project. The national version must contain any passages marked as immutable by the source laboratory/institute.

9. Press release checklist for Mieke
1) Does the release come from an interactions member? If not, does the collaboration agree to post it?
2) Does the release contain contact information?
3) Does the release contain notes for editors describing the issuing organization(s)?
4) Does the release’s first paragraph contain the essence of the story, and have global news value?
5) If other laboratories and institutions are mentioned, have they been informed?
6) If in doubt, check with Judy, Neil, James (anyone else?).