As I mentioned before, one of the advantages of working on a popular topic like mega-events is that your work periodically attracts outsized media attention. It was no different this year during the run-up to the Tokyo Olympics. Even though I don’t specifically work on Tokyo – and always recommend speaking to experts with direct experience – there are enough similarities between mega-events overall that I got to do a lot of interviews in the past weeks.

It’s strange, getting to see a bit how the media sausage is made. It’s an important job, certainly, but it’s also definitely just a job. There is always space that journalists need to fill, and a line they want to follow, and everybody has an agenda – or multiple agendas – that we’re all pursuing. Everybody needs to eat, first of all, so there are some fundamentals that we all share. But beyond that foundation, different outlets will pursue varying editorial lines, which results in some funny stuff when you do multiple similar interviews over a short period, and get to compare them.

In all of these interviews, I said practically the same things: “The Olympics are beloved by many millions, yes, but they also come with problems. And in order to fix these problems, we have to 1) acknowledge that they’re happening, 2) listen to local residents who know best what’s happening in their neighborhoods, 3) change the status quo.” Basic variations on that.

It is interesting for me to see the ways in which different journalists and outlets will highlight different aspects of those statements in various ways in order to pursue separate arguments in their own way. This isn’t a judgement, by the way, but more of an observation. I’m no different in my own work, and I’m also pursuing my own agendas. Chief among them is employment, and getting media publicity is supposed to be part of that. So I’m very much implicating myself here too.

Anyway, here are some media appearances. If you check them out, please bear in mind that each interaction with a journalist or reporter takes a lot longer than what you end up seeing. Most of them were very friendly people, smart and interesting and interested in the world, and obviously I’m grateful for the opportunity to share my work and participate just a little in global conversations. But do also try to think about how different journalists and outlets sometimes frame my statements in differing ways. I find this sort of meta-analysis fascinating and important.

A brief appearance during a largely salutatory piece on Canadian Television, CBC

In contrast, a more comprehensive and critical view of sustainability at The Independent

On the different dimensions of sustainability for Quartz

The downward trend in sustainability and how this relates to Tokyo, for Newsworthy

Another one in Canada, but this one is quite critical – and in French

My first interview for a Norwegian outlet, but I spoke English and they translated

A piece focusing heavily on ecological aspects for Politico Pro (paywall, sorry)

Already discussing the Beijing 2022 Olympics for German outlet China.Table

Aside from these highlights (and of course National Public Radio, which still thrills me), there were a few unfortunate incidents where I had long, pleasant interviews with journalists who then used my work and insights and questions… but without quoting me directly or even using my name in their pieces. As in, they used me to do their ground research but didn’t acknowledge my contributions in any way. That really doesn’t feel good.

But overall, these interactions were enjoyable and educational, and I’m grateful for the opportunity even when it doesn’t quite come out as I intended.