Reporters who specialize in health and medical issues are regularly deluged with so much information that just a few days away from their office forces them to confront a stack of paper that can climb to almost a foot high. Add to this an extensive e-mail barrage, and it becomes clear why psychiatrists have so much trouble convincing print and television reporters to do a story they believe will illuminate an important aspect of mental health care.

Two reporters for large-circulation daily newspapers and one television reporter explained to psychiatrists at APA’s Joint Institute on Legislative and Public Affairs in February in Miami Beach how they choose stories from the dozens of possibilities. They also gave the psychiatrists advice on how to pitch story ideas to local reporters and maximize the chances that their suggestions will actually make it into print or onto the air.

Most of the psychiatrists attending the joint institute are either legislative or public affairs representatives for their district branch.

Panel member Steve Sternberg, a health and medical writer for USA Today, noted that sources of story ideas related to mental illness that he has found to be good are the National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill (NAMI); major meetings held in the Washington, D.C. area, where he is based; and the occasional journal article. Press releases from public relations firms and drug companies are at the bottom of his list, noting that by working for a national newspaper, he gets "an unbelievable" amount of those every day, most of which he doesn’t even bother reading.

Nancy Smeltzer, a health reporter for the Columbus Dispatch in Columbus, Ohio, echoed the importance of NAMI representatives in generating mental health story ideas. Unlike psychiatrists, she suggested, psychologists and NAMI contacts are especially helpful in finding patients and family members to interview in conjunction with an article. Both reporters, along with panelist Helen Chickering, a reporter with the NBC news channel in Charlotte, N.C., stressed that stories illustrating a patient’s experience with mental illness or the health care system make the best news articles.

"We don’t like to just use talking heads," Chickering said, adding that for a story to get on the air, it must have interesting visuals.

Handling confidentiality concerns is often an obstacle when psychiatrists pitch story ideas to reporters, the panelists agreed, and stigma keeps many psychiatric patients from going public even when their experience represents a success of a treatment or program. That problem shows some signs of improving lately, Sternberg said, "as more people realize that mental illnesses are organic" and not the result of something a person did, making them more willing to talk on the record about their illness.

Psychiatrists have little need to question health reporters’ willingness or interest in mental health topics. There is a growing demand for coverage of mental health issues in light of the rapid pace of progress in the field, Chickering pointed out. A challenge for reporters and their expert sources, however, is "explaining how recent advances have revolutionized mental health care" in terms that will resonate with readers and viewers who are often medically naïve, Sternberg noted. Broad advances in the field are especially difficult to convey, Chickering said, reiterating that personal stories are the best way to get a message across.

Remember, Sternberg cautioned his audience of doctors, that the people who direct news coverage come from a variety of backgrounds that rarely include expertise in medical issues. As a result, health reporters have "a constant battle to persuade editors and producers" that stories they determine are important are in fact worth column inches or airtime.

And when you do talk to a reporter—even one who specializes in health issues—about a story, Chickering advised the psychiatrists, "don’t assume they know" what you’re talking about or grasp the concepts you think you are explaining. Be patient and resist the temptation to rely on technical terms you would use with professional colleagues.

Smeltzer elicited groans from the audience when she added that psychiatrists should not automatically assume that highly educated reporters know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Sternberg’s advice was to convey the idea that psychiatrists are "doctors who treat illnesses with physical causes" and to shun any arguments that smack of turf battles with psychologists.

All three reporters said that in contrast to mental health advocates and other health care providers, they have considerable difficulty getting psychiatrists to respond to their calls for information.

Psychiatrists send the message to the media "that they are either too busy or don’t realize the short deadlines and preparation time we deal with in TV. I need you to call back immediately," Chickering emphasized.

Added Smeltzer, "At least call me back and say that you got the message but are too busy to talk" and then suggest the names of colleagues who would be good information sources on a particular issue. With this kind of cooperation, psychiatrists increase the likelihood that the reporter will call them for future stories or be receptive to suggestions that might be newsworthy.

Even a story that psychiatrists believe portrays their specialty or mentally ill people in a negative light can be turned into an opportunity to develop rapport with a reporter that over time can lead to follow-up stories, Smeltzer suggested.—K.H.