<aside> ⭐

Summary:

1. Coordinate with other organizers to see if others have received a similar request.
2. Research the journalist’s background online, and chose to engage with journalists that seem interested in fair and balanced stories.
   1. If a major outlet, such as NYT: we suggest you loop in Kairos & external advisors!
3. Ask the journalist if they can do an “on background” call, with no quotes.
   1. Tell them that you can provide a written statement afterwards.
4. Prepare for your interview with a friend, reviewing your talking points and responses to adversarial questions.
5. Speak sincerely about your beliefs during the interview.
6. Write a quote that takes a clear stance on an issue, while also being difficult to take out-of-context. </aside>

Background

<aside>

In recent months, journalists have been increasingly reaching out to AI safety group leaders to find out more about their work, to learn about the community, or to ask for commentary on recent AI news. Public salience of AI risk seems to be at an all-time high, and we expect the frequency of these requests for engagement to continue to increase.

We think that student voices can be a particularly powerful one when leveraged correctly, and want groups to feel empowered to use these channels. However, we also advise approaching media interactions with significant preparation and clear strategy: if engaging with journalists, you should have a good understanding of why you want to engage & how you’ll influence the narrative.

</aside>

Engaging with Journalists

<aside> ☑️

Our Step-By-Step Recommendations

1. Check if others in your group, or in other groups, received the same request.

   Send an AIS Groups Slack message like: “Has anyone else received a media request from reporter X, outlet Y?”

   Someone might have already spoken to the reporter and flagged them as either problematic or promising!

2. Research the reporter online.

   Look up their past writing on AI safety or adjacent topics. If they have a good track record, it’s probably safe to engage. If it seems like sensationalist or generally poor writing, you should decline.

3. If a major outlet: Consider looping in Kairos & external advisors.

   Major outlets are the caliber of e.g. NYT or TechCrunch.

   You may not need to loop us in for regional outlets, such as your local news or university-run paper.

   If you let us know you’ve been contacted, we can connect you with media training resources, help assess whether you should engage, and provide interview prep and support.

   Current best practice: get in touch with Noah Birnbaum [[email protected], or +15162349090 on Signal], who has offered to help provide media training, connections to experts, and strategy advice.

4. ⭐ Be clear about the terms under which you speak with them.

   In most cases, we recommend, in writing, suggesting the following course of action:

   “Could we do a call or interview on background, meaning you can use what I say to inform your reporting but not quote me or attribute anything to my group? I could follow up with a short written statement you can quote and attribute directly.”

   Know the difference between “On the Record,” “On Background,” and “Off the Record.” See .

5. Prepare for your interview.

   Practice the conversation with a friend beforehand.

   Be aware of key talking points, “gotcha” angles (e.g. “isn’t AI safety all billionaire-funded astroturfing?”), and prepare your responses.

6. Give your interview.

   Speak sincerely and plainly, and be willing to take clear positions.

7. Take the time to draft a well-written quote and submit it to the journalist.

   See the section on .

8. Share your findings with the community!

   A Slack message like “I just gave an interview with X, and here’s the document that I used to prepare,” can be quite helpful for other organizers.

</aside>

Resources

<aside> 🤔

Things to keep in mind

• Misrepresentation is common, even in generally positive pieces.
• Some journalists are intellectually curious and looking for an interesting, fair story. Engagement with them can be valuable, but still requires preparation.
• We would recommend not engaging with journalists who are openly adversarial toward the AI safety community.
  • These journalists are unlikely to change their views through conversation, and may use your words against you. </aside>

<aside> ✏️

How to write a good statement

• You’re looking to create good quotes.
  • When providing multiple lines, each statement should be able stand alone without sounding extreme or misrepresentative. You can often edit statements so as to make them fairly resistant to adversarial quoting by joining phrases or making each of them unambiguous wrt to intent.
• Avoid making quotes too bland*.*
  • Balance defensibility with things a journalist would actually want to print.
  • The whole reason you have agreed to speak to the journalist is to get your desired message across: keep this strategic goal in mind!
• Statements should ideally be short and sweet.
  • This forces you to get your idea across in the most effective way possible, and also makes it very difficult to misquote.
• Make sure to have at least one other person proofread and peer-review the message.
  • Kairos staff are happy to review this! </aside>

<aside> ⚠️

Attribution Distinctions

🔴 On the record: Everything can be quoted and attributed verbatim.

→ We generally recommend against, for the protection of your members.

This may be okay if the journalist won’t take on background and you’re fairly sure the engagement is going to be net positive, but this is a hard bar to clear, and we recommend talking to Kairos or others first: you typically want to make sure that you yourself will be a very reliable narrator for the points that you want to hit and that the journalist will be trustworthy enough for the engagement.

🟠 (Recommended) On background: Information can be used, but not directly attributed by name.

→ Note this is ambiguous: reporters may interpret differently, ranging from “only used to inform the piece” to “can quote, but anonymously.” Clarify explicitly upfront!

🟡 Off the record: Reporter cannot print or repeat details you have shared with them off-the-record.

→ Note this must be agreed in advance — no guarantee for reporters to strike from the record post-hoc.

We recommend that groups default to on-background calls, and follow these up with a written statement, peer-reviewed by at least one other person before sending.

→ Statements should be written carefully — isolated sentences should still read well in context!

</aside>

<aside> 🗞️

Examples of previous engagements

• Negative outcome: Washington Post: "How elite schools like Stanford became fixated on the AI apocalypse"
• Dismissive outcome: Futurism: “MIT Student Drops Out Because She Says AGI Will Kill Everyone Before She Can Graduate”
• Neutral or positive outcome: Forbes: “Fear of Super-Intelligent AI is Driving Harvard and MIT Students to Drop Out”
  • The journalist contacted several organizers, and we helped ensure the story was not net-negative. Still, some students still felt misrepresented. See Yixiong from Georgia Tech’s blog post. </aside>