Is the media your friend or foe? The question was posed at an event this week held by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) and the University of Gloucestershire, at which I was invited to hold forth.
Inevitably, my unhelpful conclusion was that it is not that simple.
Because the press is not looking for ways to glorify what you do – journalism is not PR. But neither, in most cases, is the media out to monster you for the sake of it.
What, then, is the media there to do? The answer is to report and commentate on issues for a given audience. That sounds very boring, but bear with me as the audience bit is important.
Because media outlets are never 100 per cent neutral. They are looking at issues through the lens of editorial decision-making, which in turn reflects the perceived views of readers, listeners or viewers.
Now you may think that process does not work very well, that the result is a media which ossifies out-of-date perspectives or makes inaccurate ideas mainstream.
One current example is the view that free speech is under sustained attack on university campuses.
But it is pointless to blame only a terrible media for covering the wrong things in the wrong way.
So my first suggestion is not to fall into that trap, and instead to reflect on the perspectives that are being channelled through media coverage that you do not like or agree with.
Editorial tone is not just about the stories that are covered, it is also about the way they are covered.
Consider a recent example: THE’s story on the University of Bolton’s justification of its vice-chancellor’s pay, which ran to two pages in the university’s annual accounts and was packed with hyperbole.
Our news article was straightforward – the details speak for themselves and our audience understands the newsworthiness in so far as these written justifications are new to the sector.
The Times then ran a follow-up in which all the facts were the same, but with added commentary from Lord Adonis, a man not afraid of hyperbole himself.
“This statement reads more like a eulogy in praise of a communist or fascist dictator than a description of the services of a low-ranking university vice-chancellor who is grossly overpaid and should be returning more than half his salary to his students,” he fulminated.
Two versions, then, of the same story. The first an original piece of reporting, the second in essence a copy but with an additional layer of emotive criticism. But do these differences make THE your friend and The Times your enemy? Or perhaps both of us your enemy, but to different degrees?
No. They reflect readership and tone. But the coverage also reflects the media doing its job. Scrutinising. Shining a light. Holding to account. Just occasionally poking fun.
That is not to argue that all coverage of higher education in the media is fair. It is not. Nor that it represents the precious diversity of the sector.
Take a step back, and there is a clear divide between the positive coverage of research and the impact that science in particular has on our lives (think of the Covid vaccines), and negativity on concerns relating to teaching and student issues (free speech, contact hours, grade inflation and so on).
But to have a productive relationship with the media, it is worth accepting that hot-button issues do exist, and trying to understand what lies behind them rather than simply taking to Twitter to denounce anyone with concerns about campus free speech as misled or deluded.
It is also worth acknowledging that the media is more open to contributions from academics than ever, and this day-to-day presence will build support for universities, even if it is by osmosis and sits separately in our collective unconscious from the generalised angst about student debt.
There are excellent examples of organised, media-savvy influencers within the sector, Hepi being one of them.
A truly outstanding example is the Science Media Centre, which throughout the pandemic has ensured accurate, timely communication on exceptionally important, complex issues relating to everything from virology to epidemiology to sociology. It is difficult to overestimate the value of that in building trust between both academia and the public, and the media and academics.
So my advice is to not think about the relationship in terms of friend or foe, but focus on pragmatic engagement with the issues that matter to the public (and therefore to the media).
Do not fret over every negative headline, but do take notice when stories become trends, and do expect the media to do its job – which includes pressing big red buttons.
Above all, consider what lies behind these contentious issues and how to engage with the specifics.
The answer is rarely to say: “Nothing to see here” – even if you would like it to be, and even if you genuinely believe that to be the case.