Julia - thanks for a helpful update.

As someone who's dealt with journalists & interviews for over 25 years, I would just add: if you do talk to any journalists for any reason, be very clear up front about (1) whether the interview is 'on the record', 'off the record', 'background', or 'deep background', (2) ask for 'quote approval', i.e. you as the interviewee having final approval over any quotes attributed to them, (3) possibly ask for overall pre-publication approval of the whole piece, so its contents, tone, and approach are aligned with yours. (Most journalists will refuse 2 and 3, which reminds you they are not your friends or allies; they are seeking to produce content that will attract clicks, eyeballs, and advertisers.) 

Also, record the interview on your end, using recording software, so you can later prove (if necessary, in court), that you were quoted accurately or inaccurately.

If you're not willing to take all these steps to protect yourself, your organization, and your movement, DO NOT DO THE INTERVIEW.

This piece is a useful resource about these terms and concepts.

My colleague Shakeel Hashim at CEA is focused on communications for all of EA, not CEA in particular.

Are there any mechanisms in place to ensure that Shakeel’s work prioritizes the interests of  “all of EA, not CEA in particular”? I think these interests will generally, but not always, be aligned. The recent allegations that multiple  CEA board members were aware of SBF behaving unethically at Alameda in 2018 (as well as community requests for comments on those allegations) seem like an important area of potential misalignment. 

Thanks for this post. However, one of the first things that came to mind was the EA Forum itself.

It is completely public, much EA discourse happens here, and a lot of people use their real names/full names (I believe this is even encouraged). Clearly forum communication is not intended to be the same as an interview, and that it can't be quoted as an interview (I expect/hope - I have no experience with journalism), and I think many people will already be bearing this in mind. It is also hard to prove of course who it is who is actually commenting, and whether people are using their own names, so it is less reliable there than an actual interview. 

But the advice for talking to journalists seems to be for everyone in EA thinking about giving an interview, and generally I see it being very easy for a journalist to go on the forum and use that as a source (even including screenshots). 

People being able to have discussions is one of the best things about the forum in my mind, and it's good for people to be able to express their views without self-censoring. But also, anything written on the internet in public is clearly public. 

I'm sure there are some nuances here. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

See, e.g., Forbes, Some Of Sam Bankman-Fried's Donations To Effective Altruism Nonprofits Tied To An Oxford Professor Are At Risk Of Being Clawed Back:

“The recent FTX scandal has, I think, caused a major dent in the confidence many in the EA Community have in our leadership,” wrote Gideon Futerman, whose small nonprofit received money from the Future Fund, on the E.A. Forum.

And also:

Molly Kovite, legal operations manager for the Open Philanthropy foundation, a prominent E.A. group funded by Moskovitz (which does not have any ties to FTX), last Sunday warned nonprofits on the E.A. Forum, a popular message board for true believers (run by MacAskill’s center), that FTX grants made in the 90 days before bankruptcy are likely to be clawed back. Kovite added that it is “way too early to tell” whether other gifts made will be clawed back, but acknowledged that “larger transactions” would likely be targeted. On Wednesday, Open Philanthropy announced on the E.A. forum that it is taking applications and it may help fund charities that received money from FTX.

I think this is overstated. 

Many journalists are honorable and professional, and will follow the ethical norms of the profession. Some aren't honorable, and won't follow those norms. 

If in doubt about someone's credibility and integrity, don't talk to them. 

Generally speaking, if they're employed by a large, established news organization with a decent reputation (e.g. The Economist, NY Times, Financial Times), they have a fair amount to lose by violating journalistic ethics.

If they're freelance, or employed by an online sensationalist outlet that's notorious for slander (e.g. Gawker), then they have less to lose by violating journalistic ethics.

As Shakeel wrote here, the leaders of EA organizations can’t say a lot right now, and we know that’s really frustrating. 

** the leaders of EA organizations are deciding not to say a lot right now...