Discussion Starter

“Record everything, always, and apologize later, if need be.” (A throwback post)

Having a literal videographic memory would really, really come in handy sometimes… 

 

This post came to mind after an email exchange I had with an administrator last week. Not to get too into the weeds, but a crisis hit and I was being asked to do something in exchange for a benefit of my choosing.

During a meeting, I got the verbal “OK, that’s fine,” with a promise I’d get something in writing shortly after. After a month or so, I hadn’t gotten the documentation or the benefit, so I made some inquiries.

Although things aren’t entirely settled, what bugged me the most was a line that an administrator wrote to me in an email: “I found no record that we promised (SAID BENEFIT).” 

At that point, I was reminded of the phrase I often tell students: “Record everything, always, and apologize later, if need be. In God we trust. Everyone else gets recorded.”

I’m not sure yet if I’ll be wiring my office like Nixon’s White House, but while I ponder that, here’s today’s throwback post, which looks at the issue of recording people, with or without their knowledge.

 

‘Can you?’ vs. ‘Should you?’ A secret recording of a Wisconsin government phone call that inspired five random thoughts for journalism students

In trying to explain ethics to my intro writing students, I often fall back on the line that, “Ethics basically deal with things that aren’t illegal, but can get you in a lot of trouble, anyway.” Another way we separate law and ethics is the line between, “Can I do X?” vs. “Should I do X?”

This concept came into focus in a strange way last week, as Wisconsin continued to put the “fun” in “dysfunction” at the state government level:

MADISON – Republican legislative leaders lashed out Wednesday at Democratic Gov. Tony Evers after his staff secretly recorded a May 14 phone conversation over how to respond to the coronavirus pandemic the day after the state Supreme Court struck down the state’s stay-at-home order.

The recording and the reaction to it all but ensures a permanently broken relationship between Evers and Republicans who control the Legislature. The two sides have rarely gotten along since Evers was elected in 2018 and Wednesday’s episode was characterized by GOP leaders as unprecedented.

Republicans referred to the recording effort as “Nixonesque,” referring to former Republican President Richard Nixon’s desire to record everything involving him at the White House. I’m uncertain if this is irony, self-loathing behavior or something just randomly laughable, but I’m at a loss for words while watching a Republican use the name of a former two-term (almost) president as an insult. I guess I’m also pretty sure that the relationship between Evers and the Republicans was permanently shattered like Waterford Crystal thrown off the top of the Empire State Building waaaaaaay before this incident.

In any case, here are a few random thoughts for journalism students that don’t delve into the political grandstanding in this case that makes soccer “injuries” look honest by comparison:

 

THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC ANYWAY: Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, made the best point about this situation. Why the hell was this a “private phone call” among three key governmental officials?

(Lueders) said recording a conversation without alerting the other parties isn’t illegal in this state, but is in bad form — and that the nature of the meeting should have pushed the three to talk publicly instead of privately.

“I wouldn’t do that as a journalist, to record someone without them knowing,” Lueders said. “On the other hand, I don’t know what would have been said in that meeting that needed to be kept private.”

Maybe if this is a public meeting, none of this becomes an issue in the first place. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant, and it would appear to be so in this case.

 

RECORD EVERYTHING, BUT BE HONEST: According to the numerous accounts I’ve read, Richard Nixon was paranoid as hell and believed people were always out to screw him over. If you have spent any time as a reporter in this day and age, I bet Tricky Dick starts making a little more sense in that regard.

I can’t tell you how many times I have written something I got from a source, quoted a source or provide information I got about a source, only to have the person who gave me that information tell me I was wrong. And I did most of my work before the era of people in power calling everything they don’t like “fake news.”

Thus, my advice to students? “Record everything.”

That said, recording is one of those key areas where law and ethics diverge. The majority of the states in the U.S. operate under one-party consent. This means that if you are on a phone call with another person, you may record it legally without letting that other person know. The others have some version of two-party consent, which means BOTH parties on the call must know and agree to the recording before it happens. (You can read more on your state’s rules and what happens if your recording across state lines etc. here.)

The law says, “Record them all. Let God sort them out.” Ethics, however, would dictate that secretly recording people kind of undermines trust, as Lueders pointed out. This is why I always tell the students to be up front about their recording. Tell the source, “I would like to record this interview. Is that a problem?” In most cases, sources will be fine with it.

Some folks will be reticent, so I tell the students to explain WHY they want to record the interview: “I want to make sure I don’t make a mistake,” or “I want to be sure the quotes are accurate,” or “I want to protect both of us.” However, the students want to explain it is fine, but at the end of the day, it’s about having a permanent record of what occurred so if the stuff hits the fan, and suddenly everyone is pulling a “Shaggy” on this situation, you have a complete record of what happened.

 

STILL, WATCH OUT FOR YOU FIRST: I totally get why the person recorded the conversation: The Evers administration and the Republicans out here who will rule the assembly in perpetuity, thanks to gerrymandering the likes of which we’ve never seen before, are constantly in a bombastic struggle to define “truth” for the public. I’ll read one story one day and think, “OK, they’re doing X” only to read the next day some recasting of the situation that makes me think it was a dream.

In the end, if you know someone’s going to try to screw you, get a permanent record of reality.

Honestly, I’ve recorded people without their knowledge. I don’t say this with a great deal of pride, but this is what happens when you run a crime beat in an area where people felt no compunction about calling you up to scream at you about coverage. After I almost got smoked once, I considered it an insurance policy.

The first time this happened, a person called the main desk at the newspaper, asking to talk to the person in charge of crime stuff. The staffer sent the person to me, and the caller spent at least five minutes screaming at me about a story we ran. It turns out her kid/brother/friend/whatever was “illegally arrested” (a phrase I still love to this day) and what we wrote needed to be retracted RIGHT NOW.

After mentioning places that I could put my head, which defied the laws of physics, and questioning the lineage of my parents, this woman was not happy with my decision not to acquiesce to her demands. She wanted to speak to my boss.

I gave her his number and he got a much different treatment: A lot of “sir” mentions and some polite questions and so forth. She mentioned how horrible I was and how I said horrible and unspeakable things to her. Of course, my boss brought me in to ask me about this. He bought my version of events, but I swore it would be the last “he said/she said” thing I dealt with at that paper.

I hooked up a tape recorder to the phone and kept it at the ready. When I got the next call transferred, questioning my approach to crime news, I recorded it. After my boss got the complaint about me, I offered to let him listen to the recording. Eventually, that became our routine:

Him: “I got a complaint that you were horrible to (SOMEONE) who was complaining about (WHATEVER I DID).”
Me: “Uh… No… Would you like to hear the recording of the call?”
Him: “Fair enough…”

Still, the most important moment of recording I can recall came when I was an adviser at Ball State University. The school was in the middle of a provost search when one of the three candidates pulled out. The remaining two candidates were relatively polarizing: The president clearly favored one and the faculty and staff favored the other.

Just to back up her notes, the reporter borrowed my recorder for the phone call with the president. She asked the obvious question if the president had planned to restart the search. I can still remember to this day hearing the reporter as, “Is that even an option in your mind?”

The answer was no. We have two qualified candidates and we’re moving forward.

That was the story we ran, and then all hell broke loose.

Faculty were outraged, figuring they were going to get screwed, so they started talking. The president, clearly not wanting this to be a mess, decided the best thing to do was throw the newspaper under the bus.

She issued a statement via email to faculty and staff that basically said, “Look, the kids at the newspaper try really hard, but they’re kids and they screw up stuff. I never said we wouldn’t restart this. In fact, that’s what I’m doing right now. So, relax and don’t worry about the mistakes of children.”

Her problem was, we had it recorded. She didn’t know.

To be fair, the student SHOULD have told her we were recording her, and that was a lesson we made clear in the post-game analysis with the reporter. Thus, we gave the president a chance to do the right thing. The editor-in-chief called her and told her that she made us look stupid and that we were asking for a retraction. We’d let it go if she fessed up. She immediately went back to her talking points about the reporter screwing up and how this happens with cub reporters and how she wasn’t mad, but she had to set the record straight.

At that point, he let the cat out of the bag. She paused, said some unprintable things and then asked, “Are you recording me now?”

I remember thinking, “No, but I wish we were…”

In the end, she held firm. We ran her email alongside a transcript of the phone call along with an editorial on the whole thing. She was displeased, but that was on her. If the primary complaint someone has about you recording them is that you’ll report exactly what they said and they don’t like what they said, I have very little sympathy for them.

This leads to the next point…

 

IT’S NOT OUR FAULT YOU’RE A DIPSTICK: The reason we know about this recording in the first place is because the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel put in an open records request for everything associated with a coronavirus meeting between the two sides. Once they asked for everything, including recordings of the meeting, the recording came to light.

(Good side note: In open-records requests, ask for stuff that MIGHT exist, even if you don’t think it does. You might get lucky. In this request, the reporter apparently asked for any recordings of the meeting when requesting documents from Vos as well and got nothing because he didn’t record anything. The request sent to Evers yielded the tape. Short version: It never hurts to ask for stuff.)

Evers did the right thing in turning over the file, even though I’m sure he really didn’t want to. It had to be like that scene in “Silence of the Lambs” when the moth flies out of the basement and basically the killer knew he was screwed. The game was over at that point, and he basically had to brace for impact.

The recording was what I would have expected of divorced parents who were forced into a dinner with their kid at graduation: A lot of people talking past one another, some pointed jabs and the essential “How much longer must we endure this fool?” vibe. One thing that did pop up as a story was Assembly Speaker Robin Vos blaming immigrants for the coronavirus:

MADISON – Assembly Speaker Robin Vos blamed the culture of immigrant populations for a coronavirus outbreak in Racine County, according to a secret recording of his meeting last month with Gov. Tony Evers.

“I know the reason at least in my region is because of a large immigrant population where it’s just a difference in culture where people are living much closer and working much closer,” the Rochester Republican said of an outbreak in Racine County.

Of course, Vos didn’t like the story that pointed this out and tried to move the discussion back to how shameful Evers was for recording the call. He also tried to spin this to make it about how he had a deep concern for people of color who were disproportionately suffering the effects of the virus.

(Hang on… I’m dealing with the vertigo caused by that spin… OK… Phew…)

At the end of the day, neither group looks good and Vos has to deal with what would appear to every Latino group the MJS contacted as a dog-whistle, anti-immigrant blame-fest.

What’s important to remember, however, if you record something as a journalist and someone says something stupid, it’s not your fault.

This is one of the few cases where people aren’t blaming journalists, because the journalist didn’t make the recording. Vos comes the closest, in accusing the paper of not keeping its eye on the ball with the whole “Nixon-esque” recording. However, usually, in a story in which someone records something (telling the source or not) and it turns out the source says something horrible, the outrage is more over the recording or the choice to run the story than it is the horrible thing the person said.

It shouldn’t be, and you shouldn’t feel bad about it.

Your job is to report the facts, getting as close as you can to the purity of truth, in an attempt to inform your readers of something important. Rarely are those revelations something pretty and happy, so someone will be upset.

If a state rep or a city council member or a school board president says something offensive about race, gender, sexual-orientation, socio-economic status or some dude named Chad’s little brother, and you think your readers need to know about it, that’s called editorial discretion. Use it to guide you in your choices.

ALWAYS ASK, “IS THE JUICE WORTH THE SQUEEZE?”: In looking at ethical behavior, I sometimes find myself being a pragmatist more than I would like. Still, that’s because I know I have to live in the real world and not in an ivory tower, subsisting on creeds and mottoes. What I “can” do versus what I “should” do often comes down to a weighing of my options and examination of the ramifications.

(This situation is weird, in that the journalists didn’t make recording, so whatever they picked out of the open record was less on them than it was on the person making the comments and the staffer who recorded it.)

If I record a source, and the source knows the information is on the record, and the source knows I’m recording it, I pretty much have carte blanche to do as I see fit. That’s where editorial discretion comes in. What am I trying to do here?

If I run a story based on one part of an hour-long interview that makes a long-time and trusted source look bad, will I be cutting off my nose to spite my face? Probably. Some folks would say that ethics demand the unveiling of any ill that could showcase the true nature of public figures. Others would say that, short of watching that source kill a guy, you’re not ratting him out because sources like that are hard to find.

This is where I spend more time bean-counting than I might otherwise like. Is one flashy story worth not getting another story again from this source? Is my ability to tell people important things, thanks largely to this source, going to be undermined by me taking a shot across the bow at this guy? Am I protecting a person I shouldn’t be protecting, primarily because he makes me job easier?

This is why journalists who have ethics tend to drink like fish and chew Xanax like Tic-Tacs.

As a journalist, what you do is up to you (and to that extent, your publication/boss/editor/whomever runs the show), so you need to decide for yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Charlie Kirk, shooting deaths and trying to find a way forward. (A Throwback Post)

The death of Charlie Kirk, a political activist and leader of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, led to a number of expected outcomes when it came to social media and public expression. Some mourned the loss of the 31-year-old, noting that this brand of political violence is never the answer to disagreements. Others pointed to Kirk’s own words about guns, especially the time he noted that gun deaths in the United States were “worth it” if it meant we got to keep the right to bear arms.

Photos of Kirk and his family have also circulated, bringing home the message that two little kids will never see their father again.

As the shooter has not been captured as of this writing, the speculation about motive continues to be a hotly contested issue. Depending on which rabbit hole you enter, this is either a deranged liberal attempting to silence a strong, conservative voice or part of a larger conspiracy to martyr him to the causes that continue to move the country closer and closer to a fascist state.

(It also didn’t escape my notice that a school shooting in Colorado basically flew under most of the media’s radar Wednesday. Part of it, I’m sure, was Kirk’s fame and the pull of that story. The other part, sadly, was that not only have we grown numb to this idea, but that “only” three people were critically wounding, including the shooter, who died later that day.)

As much as I disliked Kirk and his message, I remain appalled at his death. I have always believed, and continue to do so, that the answer to speech you don’t like isn’t censorship or violence, but more speech. That said, this message isn’t where my brain found itself going as I started to think about all of this today.

When several friends and family members were talking about who could have shot him, the idea of a “liberal with a gun” seemed a bit too farfetched for a few folks. For me, I found myself hearing UWO professor and mass shooting survivor Joe Peterson in my head. When we spoke for my “First-Person Target” series, he mentioned how there was a social media group called something like Liberal Gun Owners. He laughed at that, explaining that there are a lot of liberals who own guns out there, so it’s not really a flex to start a group like this.

When my wife asked me how I couldn’t be absolutely terrified of what all of this means, particularly as our daughter fears that we are sliding toward becoming Gilead, it was Tracy Everbach’s words that spoke to me when as she reflected on how she could be shot at any moment by one of her students: “I’ve chosen not to be afraid.”

Today’s throwback post looks at the reflection piece I did a few years after the series ran. I think a number of the points are more relevant now than ever. If you’d like to read the whole series, I’ve linked to it here. (Warning: It’s a massive slog, and I say this as the person who wrote it.) I remain grateful to the people who gave of themselves and their time to help me learn lessons that I wish no longer were relevant in society today.

 

Four things I learned about the mass-shootings debate after wearing a bulletproof vest for a week

TeachingVest

Nearly three years ago, I decided to live in a bulletproof vest for a week as part of a journalism project to find out about guns, fear, mass shootings and more. (Photo by T.R. Gleason)

Over the past two weeks, the country has suffered two mass shootings: A gunman killed 10 people at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado and another killed eight people at three spas in Atlanta, Georgia.

News coverage of these events have examined the motives, the shooters and the “next steps” elements of this in a way that has become all too common in the United States. For me to do so here would be redundant at best, so feel free to Google these incidents and read all about the various elements of these crimes.

A few years back, in the wake of several mass shootings, I decided to take on a project where I dug into things that went beyond what you read in the horse-race coverage after a mass shooting or the political grandstanding that comes with gun-related violence of this nature. Instead of going out to people we normally talk to in the wake of these events, I wanted to talk to people who had specific angles on the various facets of the issue and then just shut up and listen to them.

The project that had been rattling around in my head for three years. After one of my friends noted that her university had become a concealed-carry campus, she expressed concern about what this meant for her safety. After several colleagues weighed in on potential ways to deal with the situation, all to no avail, I made a simple suggestion:

“Wear Kevlar.”

In other words, if you couldn’t play offense, play defense. A bulletproof vest might get people talking about the issue in a different way. She didn’t go that route, but I thought it was worth taking a chance. What followed was a week of personal participation reporting, several months of reporting and eventually a six-part series I called “First-Person Target.”

Here is the link to the main site for that project and all six pieces if you are interested.

After these more recent shootings, I went back and reread what I wrote during that time and found a few minor epiphanies that I thought might be worth sharing. I wanted to note that these are only my opinions based on looking back at what I wrote back then. I wish I had better answers to the bigger questions, but here’s what little I do have:

 

FEAR IS A COMMON THREAD: We often talk about guns as an issue of Constitutional rights or personal freedom or safety. What we don’t talk about, but is embedded in all of these topics and more is the concept of fear.

On a basic level, we do talk about the fear of someone deciding to unleash an internal fury upon a group of unsuspecting people in a seemingly random act of violence. I doubt people who entered a spa or a grocery store earlier this month in Georgia or Colorado thought to themselves, “I’m putting myself in harm’s way by going to this place right now.”

However, once these killers opened fire, many more of us now think about how it could happen to us at any time, in any place. For most of us, the fear will eventually subside when the story is no longer leading the nightly news or filling our news feeds with updates. Then, when the next attack occurs, our fears will be stoked once again.

Beyond that, however, I found that fear is at the heart of every action or lack thereof regarding the gun issue. People who dislike armed citizens fear the havoc guns can create. People who arm themselves do so for fear of not being able to protect themselves. People who oppose legislation that would limit access to firearms fear losing rights they see as sacrosanct. People who could propose legislation to limit access to guns fear the backlash from gun owners and lobbying groups as a result of trying to move the needle.

When I tried to get this project off the ground, fear was right at the forefront. I asked the UWO police chief if he knew where I could borrow a bulletproof vest to wear. He offered me instead a dose of reality:

Vince,

I’m sure you could purchase a vest for yourself, however I do not know of any police outfitter that would loan out this type of equipment.  In fact, if you started inquiring about borrowing a vest it could cause some concern from these vendors on your motives. As you stated people have a heightened awareness because of these mass casualty events.  Sorry I couldn’t be of more help to you.

When I sought people associated with firearms to help me understand a topic I really lacked knowledge in, I found fear as well. When I asked the folks in my community for someone to talk to about sales and gun registration and so forth, they all pointed me to one person in Omro, who owned a gun shop. I reached out to him and got an initial response, but after that, all I got was silence.

In talking to other people who knew this guy, the answer was simple and common: “He’s afraid to talk about this.”

Of all the people I talked to during my project, only one really told me they acknowledged the fear that comes from all of this, and it was Tracy Everbach, the professorial colleague of mine from the University of North Texas whose initial concerns helped spawn the project:

“I don’t spend a lot of time wondering if someone in my classroom is carrying a gun anymore or thinking, ‘Are they going to pull it out and shoot you with that?’”

“It’s just a personal thing to me,” she added. “I’ve chosen not to be afraid of it. I figure I’m as likely to have that happen as a car accident or whatever. Anything can happen to anyone at any time.”

 

WE ARE NOT SIDES OF A COIN, BUT FACETS OF A GEM: Journalism always talks about getting “both sides” of a story, as a way of avoiding bias. If someone is pro-X, we need to find someone who is anti-X. When we do, we quote them both and we’re done.

While some stories, like those on sporting events, do follow that pattern, most stories are much more complex than that. Even more, the people behind those stories are far more complex than many of us care to know.

When I started this project, I didn’t want archetypes or the “usual suspects.” I didn’t want a press release from the head of the NRA that spoke in platitudes. I didn’t want a “thoughts and prayers” statement from a politician. I didn’t want to collect soundbites that I could repeat in my sleep and move on.

I wanted real people who could help me understand their lives and interests and positions without fear of judgment or reprisal. I wanted to look into the heart of the issue through their window and see what they saw, whether I agreed with what they were seeing or not.

What I found is that reality isn’t what we see playing out in the wake of shootings on the news or at protests or elsewhere. I didn’t find “gun people” and “anti-gun people,” but rather people that saw their lives intersect with firearms in a variety of ways and how those intersections shaped them in some fashion.

UWO police officer Chance Duenkel carries a gun every day as part of his job, and yet knows that the weapon and his protective gear might not keep him safe in certain situations. In referring to a fallen officer he knew, he explained:

“He had all the equipment, he had the experience dealing with these types of firearms and weapons calls and the cards, unfortunately, weren’t in his favor.”

Nate Nelson, who trains people how to use firearms safely and is an avid hunter, carries a gun as well. He knows better than most the importance of training, safety and respect for weapons of this kind as well as the ramifications of choosing to carry one:

“If you draw that gun you’re probably going to spend six figures in legal defense,” he said. “People need to take that portion seriously on top of the fact of you might end up taking somebody’s life and it might be the assailant that’s bothering you or it might be somebody else that’s innocent because of where those bullets go beyond that.”

Joseph Peterson, a professor at UWO, owns a gun and works with the FBI to help people better understand mass shootings. Peterson was wounded when a gunman entered his classroom at Northern Illinois University in 2008 and opened fire. The shooter killed six and wounded 17 more.

Peterson spent time  learning a great deal about guns and what he refers to as “gun culture,” and found both the fallacies associated with the law and the nuanced nature of people with whom he interacted:

“Gun laws don’t prevent anything,” he said. “Absolutely. Laws don’t prevent anything. It’s that most people agree with them and people agree not to break them. Safety comes from having more good people than bad people.”

<SNIP>

“I think I’ve been in this kind of journey that I’ve been trying to put myself through on this,” he added. “In learning more about gun culture, learning more about firearms and learning to appreciate them for what they are, demystified a bit, I’m learning that there is a lot more middle ground covered. It’s the extreme views that muddy these waters and that’s what’s keeping things from getting done.”

 

LISTENING VERSUS WAITING TO TALK: During one interview, a source (I can’t remember who said it) stopping abruptly to tell me that they found themselves talking way more than they ever have on the topic. The reason, the person explained, was that I hadn’t said almost anything during the interview.

A similar thing happened when I was talking to Nate Nelson. At one point, about a half hour in, he asked, “Are you getting what you wanted from this?”

My answer was honest: “I really didn’t have anything I wanted to get. I just wanted to listen.”

In many cases, we know what we “want to get” from a source. We have questions that need answers and quotes that need to be gathered. I have done it dozens of times, asking the “How do you feel about X?” question to get the “I’m proud, happy and thrilled” answer. I don’t say this with any great level of pride in my reporting acumen, but rather to explain that experienced reporters and experienced sources know how to do the dance.

In this case, I went the completely opposite way. I had questions, sure, but they were more of a “Tell me a story” variety than a “Give me an answer” form. I also came in with as much of a blank slate as I possibly could. My goal wasn’t to poke back at people, but rather just hear what they wanted to tell me. Could they have been blowing smoke up my rear end? Sure, but that goes back to the earlier point about whom I chose and whom I avoided.

In several interviews, I got the sense that the people with whom I spoke weren’t used to people who listened. They were used to people who were waiting to talk.

I understand that passions can be loud and strong around life-and-death issues and that not everyone had the luxury I had in trying to just sit back and let information envelop me. However, when we aren’t listening, we are simply waiting to tell the other people why they’re wrong, and that’s not going to get us anywhere anyway.

In listening, I got to hear important points that made a lot of sense:

  • If people are going to say that mental health concerns are more to blame than guns for mass shootings, they need to be willing to put forth the money, research and resources to deal with that. They also need to be willing to look beyond that issue if this issue becomes a definitive red herring in the issue of mass shootings.
  • We’re often looking at the wrong thing when it comes to guns and death. Although the mass shootings draw the most attention and an ever-increasing body count continues to work people into a media frenzy, guns do far more damage in far less public ways. Gun statistics demonstrate that more than half of the gun deaths in the United States are suicides. Homicides account for another third of those deaths, with the majority of the deaths coming at the hands of people who knew their attackers, as in the case of domestic violence. Less than one-fifth of one percent of the gun deaths in the U.S. come from mass shootings.
  • People who don’t know a lot about guns actually talk the most about guns. Joe Peterson mentioned in an interview that shortly after the NIU shooting, he found himself talking a lot about the topic of guns and mass shootings while knowing much about either. He then did the academic thing and really researched the topic like a scholar would: Open the aperture on the lens, see the full picture and come to some provable conclusions. Nate Nelson mentioned that people get freaked out by the AR-15 because of its look and misunderstandings about the reason the gun is preferred in some legitimate circles. He noted the light weight and limited recoil make it valuable for hunters like his son. I also dug around after our interview to find that he was right about its role in mass shootings: Most mass shootings were committed with weapons OTHER than an AR-15. (For example the shooter at Virginia Tech killed 32 people with a pair of handguns. The shooter at NIU employed a shotgun and a handgun as well.) However, if all you see are social media posts, memes and news clips, you might be left with the impression that banning the AR-15 would solve all of our shooting problems.

I figured out a lot more along the way as well and I find myself pushing back at a lot of things I might have otherwise accepted as gospel before this project. I also figured out that I can understand a lot of things people believe without completely agreeing with them, and vice versa.

WE SUSTAIN MENTAL SCARS THAT NEVER COMPLETELY FADE: Of all the things I heard in doing this project, the one that stuck with me the most came from Chase Cook, a reporter at the Annapolis Capital Gazette. In 2018, a man with a long-standing feud against the paper came to the newsroom armed with a shotgun. He killed six of Cook’s colleagues.

Cook was off that day, but upon hearing of the attack, he went to the office where he began to report on the events of the day. The work of Cook and the fellow survivors earned national honors and praise, including a spot as Time’s “People of the Year.”

As the incident faded from the collective consciousness, Cook continued to deal with the aftermath of his experiences.

“I have a hard time in movie theaters now,” he said. “I get anxious when the lights go out, which is a bummer because I love going to the movies. I think about it a lot when I’m in really crowded places… That fear factor has kind of permeated through everything. I’m at work, I’m in danger. I’m at school, I’m in danger. I’m at church, I’m in danger. I have to convince myself that I’m not because while mass shootings are a problem in the country and they’re up, they’re still a rare crime.”

I haven’t spoken to Cook for at least a year now, but I often think about him when a shooting occurs. I wonder if he reads the news coverage. I wonder if he’s been able to enjoy movies again. I wonder if he is OK.

In talking to Kelly Furnas, the former adviser of the Collegiate Times at Virginia Tech, I found he also had residual mental scars after dealing with a mass shooting. He mentioned to me simple things, like noticing how certain door handles were replaced because the campus shooter had chained the doors of a building to prevent escape. He mentioned trying to be more aware of certain things but not letting fear dominate his life.

As a newshound of sorts, however, he also found difficulty when it came to reading about each subsequent shooting that occurred in the U.S.:

“Quite frankly when I hear about a mass shooting I read the headline and I mention it to my wife and that’s about it,” he added. “That’s about all I can handle at this point. It’s obviously overwhelmingly sad and it’s frustrating and it makes you angry and upset but it’s also just like not where my energy can be. I think every single time that happens I think back to my students and what they went through and maybe that’s part of it.”

Joe Peterson, who was wounded in a mass shooting, talked about therapy and life changes and other major issues he dealt with. He also discussed minor things like seeking out exits in movie theaters and not being able to sit with his back to the door at a restaurant for a long time. In explaining his experiences, he told me that a lot of those personal difficulties were shared among people who had gone through situations like he had:

“With every one of these tragedies there are more and more survivors,” he said. “We are all members of a club we don’t want to be a member of and we don’t want any more members in it.”

If there was a single thing I think everyone I spoke with would agree on, it would be that.

The Ethics and The Collateral Damage of Outing ‘Phillies Karen’

 

THE LEAD: A viral moment during the Marlins/Phillies game on Friday has turned the lives of several women upside down, as internet “sleuths” have tried to “out” an enraged and entitled fan.

THE BACKGROUND: When Harrison Bader’s home run reached the outfield stands, several fans grabbed for it, including Drew Feltwell who retrieved it for his son, Lincoln. The female fan who lost out on the chase confronted Feltwell and demanded the family give up “her ball.”

After several moments of being berated, Feltwell turned the ball over to the woman who has been dubbed “Phillies Karen.”

Feltwell appeared shaken by the confrontation, the video shows. After a brief interaction, he plucks the ball out of his son’s mitt and hands it to the woman in the Phillies jersey.

He said he made the decision because he did not want to do something he’d regret in front of his kids.

“There was kind of a fork in the road, like, I’m gonna go one direction and then probably regret,” Feltwell said. “Or go this direction and do something in front of my kids that, you know, like a teaching moment.”

In probably two of the best PR moves in recent memory, the Marlins organization dispatched a staffer with a swag bag for Logan, who was there to celebrate his birthday, while the Phillies arranged for Logan to meet Bader, who gave the boy an autographed bat.

 

THE FALL OUT: The woman in the video has yet to be identified, despite the fact more people recorded her than recorded the finale of “M*A*S*H*.” In addition, her photo has been shared around the internet, both as kind of digital “wanted” posters and some pretty amusing memes:

My favorite is this reference to “Field of Dreams.”

What’s less amusing is what has happened to the women who apparently bear a passing resemblance to this woman and have caught hell for it.

“Ok everyone,” Cheryl Richardson-Wagner posted on Facebook Saturday. “I’m NOT the crazy Philly Mom (but I sure would love to be as thin as she is and move as fast)… and I’m a Red Sox fan!”

Richardson-Wagner has been roasted online as the heartless Phillies fan caught on viral video throwing a stadium-sized tantrum at LoanDepot Park in Miami, bullying dad Drew Fellwell into turning over a home run ball he gave to his young son, Lincoln.

Also…

The other name suggested was Leslie-Ann Kravitz’s, with claims circulating that she was the woman in the clip and had been fired from her job at the Hammonton school district in New Jersey. Here’s the truth of what happened.

Is Leslie-Ann Kravitz the ‘Phillies Karen’?

The claim that Leslie-Ann Kravitz is the ‘Phillies Karen’ came from several anonymous social media handles. It was circulated on X without any substantiating proof. HT.com cannot verify these claims.

Accusing someone of doing something that the public hates a person for isn’t made any better when toss a vague, bold-type caveat in there. That said, it’s at least better than what these people did, flat out saying it actually was Kravitz.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE: Not to be too curmudgeonly here, but today’s “citizen vigilantes” apparently aren’t as good at ruining the “right” person’s life as they once were. In 2003, it only took about 8 hours for Steve Bartman to be the most hated man in Chicago Cubs’ fandom.

Setting that aside, the question of when is it OK to name someone involved in a public act like this requires more than rushing to social media so you can yell, “FIRST!” Traditional media outlets would often debate the merits of naming someone in this situation, the confidence the journalists have in their reporting and the potential fallout of naming someone, even if the identification is accurate.

Not everyone receives that level of ethical training, as the dissemination of content no longer rests in the hands of the venerable “Fourth Estate.” That said, even legacy media have rushed out stories or identifications for fear of being late on the deal, even if the reporting is shaky or the impacts can devastate people. Of the interest elements we preach in the FOCII mnemonic, apparently “Immediacy” seems to be the dominant one.

Being first is one of those things that can kick the adrenaline into high gear for journalists, and I say that as a former “scoop junkie.” The idea of breaking a story and getting your info out to the public first can feel better than a first kiss.

However, I’ve also been on the back end of a few of situations where reporting missteps taken while running down glory road had me an inch away from being fired. Had I been more cautious and less interested in being first, I probably could have avoided more than a few of those situations.

In looking at a situation like this, I’d argue that we should remind ourselves of the most cautious journalist adage I’ve ever heard: “The duty to report is not the same as the duty to publish.”

In short, it’s better that 1,000 guilty Karens should go unshamed than one innocent Karen become an internet meme.

DISCUSSION STARTER: As a reporter, how far would you go to identify this person? When would you feel comfortable publishing a name? What benefit do you see in publicly naming this person, and what do you think would force you to reconsider naming her?

 

Do students need to memorize things anymore? (A Throwback Post)

Rote memorization was a large part of my education and my life as I grew up. The nuns had a way of smacking the hell out of you if you couldn’t remember all 50 states or their capitals. We also got put through the paces on our “times tables” with speed and accuracy showing equal value at that point.

Beyond that, we had to memorize a number of crucial things like our locker combinations and crucial phone numbers for home, grandma’s house and our friends.

(If you don’t believe me, ask anyone over the age of 40 what their home phone number was and they probably still have it committed to memory. Even more, when I was a kid, I would always call my buddy, Mark, who lived across the street to see if he could come out and play. Fast forward to me being in my late 30s and needing to have someone check on my dad. I still remembered that number, so I called his parents’ house at that same land-line number and got the help I needed.)

Today, we lack the need for such things in so many ways. I honestly have no idea what my kid’s phone number is, as my phone tells it to me. I also don’t have email addresses or websites memorized, as they are auto-filled or replaced by apps.

So, is memorization dead, and if so, is that OK? That question took on new meaning when I saw a couple opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal. The first by professor Alex Green, talked about the ways in which AI has robbed his students of the ability of important thinking skills:

these core skills are no mystery. They involve an ability to sift through information and understand who created it, then organize and pull it together with logic, reason and persuasion. When teachers dream of our students’ successes, we want to see these skills help them thrive.

For that to happen, students must gain the ability to synthesize information. They must be able to listen, read, speak and write—so they can express strategic and tactical thinking. When they say AI is eroding their ability to speak and write, this is what they’re losing, often before they’ve ever fully gained it.

As much as I totally feel what this guy is saying, I can understand how students (or AI-proponents who aren’t students) could dismiss this as, “OK, Boomer” level complaints really boil down to a professor feeling less important than usual.

However, the second piece, by WSJ ed board member Allysia Finley, has me a bit more concerned about what AI is doing to younger brains through “cognitive offloading:”

The brain continues to develop and mature into one’s mid-20s, but like a muscle it needs to be exercised, stimulated and challenged to grow stronger. Technology and especially AI can stunt this development by doing the mental work that builds the brain’s version of a computer cloud—a phenomenon called cognitive offloading.

<SNIP>

Why commit information to memory when ChatGPT can provide answers at your fingertips? For one thing, the brain can’t draw connections between ideas that aren’t there. Nothing comes from nothing. Creativity also doesn’t happen unless the brain is engaged. Scientists have found that “Aha!” moments occur spontaneously with a sudden burst of high-frequency electrical activity when the brain connects seemingly unrelated concepts.

With that in mind, I go back to this early question and I wonder what you have to say about it as professors, journalists and generally smart reader-type folks:

Is memorization a necessary skill for college journalism students?

I know this might seem like a click-bait headline or like I have the answer to it, but this is an honest question for my fellow J-folk out there.

The reason I ask is because I heard a number of students grousing in my writing class about a gen ed course they all are taking that requires them to do (what I consider to be) an insane amount of memorization for tests. The exams are between 80 and 120 questions each and are to be completed within two hours. They also allow no aids, such as notes or books.

Since most of my classes are skills-based, I tend to avoid multiple choice questions or exams that go this route. However, since I let the students pick their poison when it comes to in-class exams, we do have a mix of “write this” and “pick this” kinds of questions, including multiple choice. However, I let them have the AP style book and whatever notes and homework I’ve turned back to them. My rationale is that the point of this course is to help you improve your writing/editing/reporting/whatever, so learning from previous successes and failures is par for the course in our field.

However, I have plenty of colleagues who teach large pit classes with more dates and places kinds of stuff who do use the “choose A, B, C or D” kind of questions, some of whom allow notes while others don’t. Is one better than the other? I don’t know. That’s the point of my question here.

Here are a few caveats for the discussion:

  • I know some fields need memorization because looking everything up at the time in which the information is needed doesn’t work well. If you’re majoring in a language, fluid speaking, writing and reading are crucial, thus, memorization is at the core of what we do here. Also, when it comes to the medical field, I don’t want to hear my doctor or nurse saying, “I don’t know… Just Google it!”
  • I used to be of the “what if you CAN’T look it up” denomination of our field. The idea of quick recall mattered when you didn’t have an AP style book at hand or you couldn’t get to the clip files to look something up. Now, we all carry computers with us that can tell us everything we need. (And if you’re going to make the “What if you don’t have service?” argument, I’d counter with, “You’re probably going to be eaten by the “Hills Have Eyes” people, so not knowing when the Council of Trent happened is probably not a priority.”
  • I also used to be of the “You need the basics of our bible” kind of person as well. That meant a lot of AP memorization or at least knowledge of where to go in the book. I still force the kids to read the actual book in early classes so they know where stuff is or what is in there, but now everything is searchable for a reasonable subscription fee on AP. We also have dictionaries online. (It also makes less sense to memorize AP these days, since it seems like AP is changing rules at a maximum volume every year.)

What I’m looking at is the idea of forcing memorization in journalism classes and requiring gen ed classes of our majors that rely on this kind of approach to education. Is this the best path forward for our students? If so, why? If not, what should we do then?

I look forward to your thoughts in the comments or via email.

Sieve! Sieve! Sieve! AG Pam Bondi green-lights the harassment of journalists as a result of Trump administration leaks

(Rare footage of Wisconsin Badger Hockey fans either taunting an opposing goalie for failing to make a save or mocking Pam Bondi for not running a tighter ship when it comes to stopping sources from leaking information to the media… )

THE LEAD: Attorney General Pam Bondi decided the best way to stop the sieve-like nature of the Trump administration’s leaking problem was to go after the journalists who received the information instead of the people leaking it.

To do that, she issued a memo late last month that made it easier for the government to subpoena reporters, their notes and other documents.

[T]he Bondi memo appears to have rescinded a specific provision protecting journalists from Justice Department subpoenas, court orders and search warrants based on the “receipt, possession, or publication” of classified information.

This change would make it easier for Justice Department attorneys to pursue journalists to identify confidential sources in reporting that involves leaks — like the Pentagon Papers or Watergate. And that could chill news reporting in the public interest.

THE MEMO: Bondi’s four-page explanation for her rollback of the protections put in place more than a decade ago under Merrick Garland offers both shot across the bow at journalists who receive and use leaked material as well as a general disdain for journalists generally:

Without question, it is a bedrock principle that a free and independent press is vital to the functioning of our democracy. The Department of Justice will defend that principle, despite the lack of independence of certain members of the legacy news media.

My takeaway is bloggers, as non-legacy news media, are safe to be completely dependent upon whomever they want for cash and prizes while taking leaked documents. So… Send your cryptocurrency bribes and emails about TrumpCoin to the email address linked on the blog’s About Us page…

Also, this feels more like an angry wedding party host giving a toast more than a serious memo at this point: “I’d like to say congratulations to Jill, the bride, my sister and my best friend. I will always be there for you, even though you slept with my prom date while I was throwing up in the bathroom at after prom. Still, love you, Jill! Jack, welcome to our family, and you might want to get a blood test… ”

And then there’s this…

This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people. “Where a Government employee improperly discloses sensitive information for the purposes of personal enrichment and undermining our foreign policy, national security, and Government effectiveness—all ultimately designed to sow chaos and distrust in Government—this conduct could properly be characterized as treasonous.”8 

A lot of suppositions there, not the least of which is that stuff “could” be treasonous or that all disclosures they want to attack are also definitely meant to undermine policies, victimize agencies and hurt people. By the way, the quote is from one of Trump’s executive orders, as are several other footnoted passages. Just one more reason to read the footnotes before assuming the content is valid.

The memo demonstrated why she probably should have hired one of those journalists she is now targeting to do some proofreading and copy editing:

The Attorney General must also approve efforts to question or arrest members of thew news media.

(Emphasis mine)

 

SO HOW FREAKED OUT SHOULD YOU BE? I wanted to run this past a couple of my “legal eagle” friends to basically get two questions answered before I posted about this:

  1. What is essentially going on here?
  2. How freaked out should journalism folks be about this and why?

Starting with the answer to number one, the legal folks explained that we do not have a nationwide press-shield law, nor an unfettered reporter’s privilege to legally keep the government at bay indefinitely. The case of Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) established that reporters can be compelled to break confidentiality agreements with sources if the government feels it is important that they do so.

As one of the legal folks noted, this isn’t just Trump being Trump about stuff he doesn’t like. Other administrations have also poked the media in a similar fashion when the situation benefited them:

“Many admins have used their federal investigative powers to harass journalists — Nixon famously, but definitely GW Bush and even Obama and certainly the Trump 1 admin. Merrick Garland as AG issued a memo saying his justice department wouldn’t do that, but that’s just guidance, it’s not binding. Congress had a chance to pass the PRESS Act in December provide more protection by law, but Trump told the GOP to kill it, and they did.”

As for number two, the answer basically comes down to, “Be as freaked out as you normally would be about dealing with leaks, because you never really had a lot of protection to begin with.” As one of those legal eagles put it:

“Congress has never passed a shield law, or Free Flow of Information Act, so our legal protection has always been in that weird middle space left by Powell’s concurring opinion in Branzburg.

“We still have a little bit of protection if there’s evidence the government is acting in bad faith or retaliation or harassment against journalists instead of having a bona fide need to get information they can’t get otherwise.

“I think this is more about undoing anything the Biden admin did than anything practically different. We all knew Trump and his admin would go after journalists — he’s been clear about that since before he was elected the first time.”

Essentially, the law itself hasn’t really changed, nor has anyone really stood up for journalists on the federal level (states have passed shield laws here and there, but that doesn’t apply when the fed comes calling). That said, it’s the enforcement that’s likely to be more of a concern.

“Trump and anyone serving in his administration see journalists who report things they don’t like as the enemy. They will target them for retaliation and force their newsrooms (if they work for one) to invest resources to fight in court. Bondi just gave the green light for that. Nixon would be proud.”

(SNIP)

“If anything, I think it’s aimed at trying to scare journalists from publishing leaks — or to scare leakers that journalists may not be able to protect them.”

“I’m not sure that’s gonna work, but it’s definitely the message Trump wants to send.”

DISCUSSION STARTER: What are your thoughts on the Bondi memo as well as the history of the government not solidifying a national media-protection act of some kind? Would that make you more or less worried about what to do if you received important information via a leak?

 

’60 Minutes’ leader quits, citing lack of editorial freedom and limited backing from his bosses

 

THE LEAD: Bill Owens, one of only three people to run “60 Minutes” over its lengthy stay on CBS, resigned this week, telling his staff that he felt the show’s editorial independence was compromised.

“Over the past months, it has also become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it. To make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience,” Owens wrote. “So, having defended this show- and what we stand for – from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward.”

Much of the concerns related to what “60 Minutes” is or isn’t doing is, spoiler alert, related to President Trump’s attacks on the show, network and parent company. He has filed a $20 billion lawsuit against anything that breathed within the vicinity of the program, stating it was fraudulent in its actions as they related to an answer on the Middle East that Kamala Harris gave.

Trump sued CBS, which is owned by Paramount, a few days before the November election, alleging that the “60 Minutes” interview with Harris was deceptively edited and therefore violated a Texas consumer protection law. He then expanded the lawsuit earlier this year, alleging an additional claim under the federal Lanham Act and seeking at least $20 billion in damages. In March, Paramount and CBS filed two motions to throw out the lawsuit, calling it an “affront to the First Amendment.” And on April 7, their lawyers filed another motion asking the plaintiffs to produce the documents requested in discovery.

“Despite their insistence that discovery move forward, Plaintiffs have shown very little desire to produce their own documents, relying on unfounded objections and delay tactics,” the Paramount and CBS legal team said.

Paramount is in negotiations to sell the company, which requires FCC approval and that means it’s a really awkward time to be in a pit-sticking match with the administration. Therefore, trying to settle the suit and trying to keep its watchdog on a leash is in the financial best interests of Paramount.

 

SECOND VERSE, SAME AS THE FIRST: This isn’t the first time that independent media outlets have gotten the muzzle treatment out of fear of Trump.

The Washington Post, owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, had several tussles between speaking truth to power and trying not to piss off power. Artist Ann Telnaes quit the paper after Bezos spiked one of her political cartoons about how the corporate interests in the country worshiped Trump.

Ann Telnaes says the rough version of the cartoon she drew for The Washington Post , shown above, was rejected by the paper's editorial page editor.

Bezos also took heat during the election season when he spiked the paper’s editorial endorsement of Harris for president. The L.A. Times had a similar situation, in which its editor resigned when the paper’s owner killed a Harris editorial prior to the election.

Yep, this is the hard-hitting journalism I’m getting these days from Bezos media….

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE: We can call this situation a number of things (disgusting, nauseating, terrible, autocratic), but we shouldn’t call it surprising. Money isn’t everything, but it always beats the hell out of whatever comes in second, so when doing the right thing and speaking truth to power get between a money-person and a payday, it’s pretty obvious what’s going to occur.

We also shouldn’t lay this all at the feet of Donald Trump, as if he were the sole factor in the squelching of public debate and awareness. Sure, he can wave a bigger stick at bigger institutions, but let’s not pretend that this kind of thing hasn’t happened long before he came down that escalator.

A former student of mine worked at a newspaper along the East Coast where he was doing business journalism. The woman who owned the paper had no interest in journalism, as she had inherited it from her publisher husband. When my student wanted to do investigations into local businesses doing shady stuff, she shut him down because she didn’t want him “bothering my friends.”

Another former student worked at a radio station where he found out about a police chief behaving badly. After the station published its stories on the web, the police chief and his lawyer threatened all manner of things. The message was simple: Pull the story down or we’re suing you out of existence.

Had it not been for some legal help from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, he likely would have folded under the pressure of the threats. The story stayed up and won an award, while the chief moved on and the threat of the suit went away.

And, not to put too fine of a point on it, student newspapers always find themselves dealing with some level of “external pressure” as it relates to covering things administrators, athletics or student “leader” don’t want mentioned. Just because it’s happening to “grown-up journalism” doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened before elsewhere.

As we outlined in various posts before, the First Amendment doesn’t protect against all the stuff people tend to think it protects against. It also doesn’t help people hoping to turn a profit grow a spine.

DISCUSSION STARTER: Is there a difference in your mind between the government stepping in and prohibiting speech and an organization self-censoring for fear of negative external outcomes?

Also, is resigning from the show the best thing Bill Owens can do, or is it not? It’s easy to make the argument in both ways, but focus on the WHY you think what you think about this and what it says about his ability to leave a job like this in this way.

 

 

 

A Lot at Steak: How U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s AI Blunder Led to Marketing Gold

THE LEAD: Secretary of Education Linda McMahon managed to confuse AI (artificial intelligence) with A.1. (steak sauce) while delivering her comments at the ASU+GSV Summit last week.

The gaffe became fodder for all sorts of internet humor, but company responsible for making the condiment saw an awesome opportunity and took full advantage of the mistake:

A.1. Sauce capitalized on McMahon’s blunder by posting an Instagram post on their verified account saying, “You heard her. Every school should have access to A.1.”

“Agree, best to start them early,” the picture attached to the post reads.

Other Instagram users loved the response from the Kraft Heinz-owned brand. One user even commented, “I will be buying a bottle or two because of this post.”

 

KRAFT-ING MARKETING GOLD AGAIN: Kraft Heinz, which markets A.1., has a decent track record of grabbing a cultural moment and running with it. The company took advantage of the “Barbenheimer” explosion by introducing a pink “Barbie-cue” sauce and has also linked a ranch dressing to Taylor Swift. In each case, the company drew attention to its brand, garnered some nice free media publicity and avoided the kinds of gaffes often associated with trying to ride a trend.

Despite the random uncertainty in the market these days, the stock closed up on Friday and has shown a gain from $27.60 on April 9 to $29.33 on Friday. Although that time frame corresponds with the comments McMahon made about A.1., it’s a bit simplistic to say the gains were solely connected to that mistake.

In its rating of best food stocks to buy according to billionaires, Insider Monkey rated Kraft Heinz at the top of the list for a number of reasons, including global supply chain and reliance on AI (not A.1.) for keeping factories humming. Still, people are saying they’re buying a bottle or two of the steak sauce as a result of the gaffe:

So far, A.1.’s loyal fans seem to be in support of its “new sauce.”

“My husband wants a bottle for his desk,” one commenter wrote under the brand’s post. “He teaches middle school, at least until they replace him with A.1.”

 

BLOG FLASHBACK: Kraft Heinz isn’t alone in taking advantage of dumb situation with some marketing genius. As we noted back in 2018, Country Time Lemonade drew a lot of attention after it created its “Legal Ade” defense fund for kids who had been fined for not having a business permit to run their lemonade stands.

Like the A.1. effort, this worked because it was on the right side of the argument, made fun of the utterly ridiculous and didn’t run a significant risk of hurting its brand with this maneuver.

Other organizations tend not to be as lucky when they jumped in on trending hashtags or didn’t think about potential blow back before entering the larger discussion.

DISCUSSION TIME: What do you think Kraft Heinz should do next? Ride the wave? Leave it alone? Try something else? Also, what other marketing maneuvers have you seen that tried to connect with a trend? Did they succeed or fail in your eyes? Why?

I$ Ca$h $peech? Elon Musk has a couple million thoughts on that…

Make It Rain Money GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY
An artistic rendering of Elon Musk’s rally in Green Bay on Sunday…

THE LEAD: Elon Musk handed out two $1 million checks Sunday as part of his efforts to rally voters for Brad Schimel in the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race.

Musk apparently decided that dumping $20 million in ad money into my home state’s Supreme Court Election wasn’t doing enough, so he decided to start handing out money to potential voters like it was parade candy.

Aside from offering people $100 each to sign a petition against “activist judges” (a thinly veiled swipe at the Democrat-backed candidate Susan Crawford), he took it a step further in offering the big cash prizes to a couple Wisconsin voters.

State AG Josh Kaul filed suit in an attempt to block this move, even as Musk was reshaping his offer:

Kaul is asking a Madison-based state appeals court to issue an order barring Musk from handing out $1 million checks to voters ahead of a planned Sunday event in Green Bay. The Democratic Attorney General first sought the ruling from a Columbia County judge who declined to act before Sunday, according to Kaul.

In a since-deleted post on X, Musk said he would hold an event Sunday in Wisconsin and hand out $1 million checks to voters “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.”

But after election experts and Democrats raised questions about whether the offer violated the state’s election bribery laws, Musk deleted the post and said he would instead be handing over the checks to two people who would serve as spokespeople for his “Petition In Opposition To Activist Judges.” The new post also no longer said attendance would be limited “to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election,” as the original post had stated.

The appeals court rejected Kaul’s efforts on Saturday, noting that he hadn’t fully supported his application properly, so the judges denied his request. The Supreme Court also shot down his request.

BASIC BACKGROUND ON THE RACE: If you live outside of Wisconsin and have a limited interest in politics, you probably never heard of Susan Crawford or Brad Schimel. If you live in the state of Wisconsin, you probably know their names better than you know the name of your current pets.

(It’s also likely that you think all the Supreme Court will do is rule on when to set pedophiles free, given that seemed to be the gist of every attack ad on both sides of this.)

Like most court races, the Wisconsin Supreme Court election is supposed to be a non-partisan affair. As has become the case everywhere, that’s not entirely true, as both Republicans and Democrats basically pick sides and pour time, effort and cash into getting a candidate more to their liking onto the court.

Unlike most other statewide races in the country, people all over the place have taken a vested interest in whether Crawford or Schimel wins. According to a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel analysis, people from all 50 states have dumped a record amount of cash into this election. The Brennan Center reported last week that the two campaigns and outside groups have spent more than $73 million on the race, which doesn’t account for whatever was spent since March 24.

The main reason is that whoever ends up winning will tilt the “non-partisan” court 4-3 toward a more liberal or more conservative side of the spectrum. With questions about gerrymandered state maps, women’s rights to bodily autonomy, state workers’ union rights, gun regulations and more likely coming down the road to the Supreme Seven, this race is seen as a really big deal for Wisconsin and beyond.

BASIC BACKGROUND ON FINANCIAL SPEECH AND ELECTIONS: In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission case that outside interest groups could spend as much money as they wanted to influence the outcome of elections via messaging of all kinds.

According to the Brennan Center, this led to the creation of giant “Super PACs” (political action committees) that wealthy interests could use basically steer election outcomes:

In other words, super PACs are not bound by spending limits on what they can collect or spend. Additionally, super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear. And while super PACs are technically prohibited from working directly with candidates, weak rules that are supposed to enforce this separation have often proven ineffective.

The court in the Citizens United decision did note, however, that the law could limit money in politics if it was clear that the money was being used in a form of outright bribery, or  “quid pro quo corruption.” So, in short, Rich Dude/Dudette X can drop $500 billion into ads, mailers, events, social media posts and people wearing sandwich boards promoting a candidate for the Omro Dog Catcher Election, but they can’t hand $100 bills to voters outside a polling place for the purpose of buying their votes.

THE SMELL OF MUSK: Elon’s offers are clearly outside of the norm of what we’ve seen in politics to date (at least in recent years). To be fair, he’s giving out cash to people who sign a pledge that has no legally binding requirements and isn’t capable of creating any legally binding action if he reaches a certain number of signatures. In fact, people could take his money, use it to print up a boat load of Susan Crawford lawn signs and move on if they chose.

He also initially tried to skirt the rules meant to tamp down on bribery by making the two $1 million offers a kind of Publishers Clearinghouse Giveaway of sorts. His offer this time was for those folks who helped get the signature, which again, have no actual value in the broader sense of this election, so offering money for them is kind of like when the tooth fairy would pony up cash for your baby incisors.

What becomes a concern here is the psychological impact of reinforcing desired behaviors. The approach Musk is taking to get people to lean toward his liking is like Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’s pigeons and Bandura’s bobo dolls all in one. Although the law has outlined strict rules for what is and isn’t bribery, psychological researchers have found the line between bribery and reinforcement to be a little fuzzier.

DISCUSSION STARTER: Where do you stand when it comes to the ideas outlined in the articles linked throughout here, particularly as they relate to the offering of money to complete a task like the petition Musk wanted people to sign? Is this a harmless stunt, a bribery attempt to undermine electoral legitimacy or something in between? Explain what you think and why and see if anyone can change your mind.

 

You are always in the public eye, so it pays to keep that in mind (a.k.a. we used to call it the World Wide Web for a reason)

This ensemble is from the “Dress to fire people” line…

THE LEAD (Part I): Being a social media influencer can take a lot of work, but multitasking between firing people as part of the Office of Personnel Management and showcasing clothing options that collectively cost more than my first car tends to lead to problems:

On the day O.P.M. sent a memo to all federal department and agency heads asking for lists of underperforming employees to terminate, she flaunted a “work look” that included a purple skirt that her followers could also purchase, retailing at $475. She would get a commission if they used her link.

The spokeswoman, McLaurine Pinover, is not the only member of the Trump administration to have used her federal office to promote outside business interests, but former agency officials and ethics watchdogs say that the timing and content of the videos were both unlawful and especially tone-deaf.

 

I wonder how they tracked her down after she scribble out her… Oh… Yeah…

THE LEAD (Part II): Being a racist jerk tends to lead to a lot of backlash, particularly when you leave enough clues for people to find you.

On March 2, Stephanie Lovins, while dining at Cazuelas Mexican Cantina in Columbus, Ohio, left a message for Ricardo, a U.S. citizen serving her.

In the signature section of her receipt, Lovins wrote: “I hope Trump deports you,” followed by “Zero. You suck.” The incident occurred after Lovins grew upset over the restaurant’s “one coupon per table” policy.

A restaurant employee who found the receipt shared a photo on social media, and it quickly went viral, provoking widespread condemnation and calls for Lovins’ termination.

 

DIGITALLY DUMB: In both cases, the people involved tried to wiggle their way out of this situation. In Pinover’s case, she did the “Ugh… like, why are you making such a big deal about this?” thing, arguing that she didn’t make any money and trying to garner sympathy for her influencer attempts:

In a statement, Ms. Pinover said she never made any money from the fashion videos.

“While I was battling breast cancer as a new mom, I felt so unlike myself. I turned to social media shortly after as a personal outlet,” she wrote. “I never made any income and with only about 800 followers, I’m surprised the so-called ‘newspaper of record’ finds this newsworthy. My focus remains on serving the American people at O.P.M.”

 

In the case of Lovins, she went with what I call the “Shaggy Defense” when confronted:

Lovins initially denied any involvement, claiming on social media that her credit card had been lost or stolen and that someone else had used it.

“My credit card was lost/stolen, and someone attempted to use it. Thanks for the notifications! This has been reported through my bank,” she wrote on Facebook.

“Thank you for all the recent notifications of scammers and profile hackers! I recently discovered a lost/missing credit card and an attempted use/purchase. I appreciate your patience while I manage the situation,” she wrote in a post on LinkedIn….

However, this was discovered to be a false statement after the restaurant reviewed CCTV footage and confirmed that she was inside the restaurant, leading to her termination.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER FLASHBACK: Two things came to mind in reading these stories. First, it was the idea that anything we do nowadays is private is almost quaint, but particularly so when you actively jump online.

I remember in the early ’00s when I had a student who wrote a blog post/diatribe about a conservative student on our campus. When that conservative kid saw the post, she put out the Bat Signal to conservative websites and media outlets, thus leading to this exchange between me and my student:

HER: This isn’t fair! I’m getting attacked by all these people who she shared the piece with.

ME: What do you mean it’s not fair? You published a hit piece on her, so she’s telling people to tell you what they think about it.

HER: But that wasn’t supposed to be for her! It was only for my friends! It was supposed to be private!

ME: What part of the “WORLD WIDE WEB” do you not understand?

Second, I had a similar situation where we were going to launch the reporting book and the folks at Sage wanted me to do a whole new social media profile:

ME: I’ve got a Twitter account and I’ve got a ton of followers already. Why should I delete that and do a different one?

EDITOR: Vince, do you remember what you ate for lunch yesterday?

ME: Um… No…

EDITOR: How about last week Tuesday?

ME: Not a clue…

EDITOR: Right. So you’ve been on Twitter for about 10 years at this point… How many of those tweets are things you remember well and are totally proud of?

ME: (Quietly setting fire to every digital account and device I ever owned…)

To be fair, I’m sure I wasn’t asking for money or to deport a server, but I was extremely upset about the Cubs stealing the 2016 World Series from my Cleveland squad, so I’m sure I didn’t cover myself in glory there…

 

BLOG FLASHBACK: We’ve had a number of these cases in which people behaving badly ended up getting shared online, leading to terrible outcomes.

There was the college student who didn’t think anyone would share her “Finsta” tirade about Black people. We also had the kid at UW-Madison, who apparently thought her “private thoughts” on forcing the ghosts of Black people to “pick cotton”   wasn’t going to go viral. Then, there was the kid who had a swastika flag and a whiteboard full of slurs getting outed at UW-Oshkosh.

I’m sure there were more, but I started getting depressed, so let’s just leave it at those and say these are not rare occurrences.

 

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: Given that the sheer tonnage of time people spend online each day could stun a team of oxen in its tracks, there are a couple key takeaways for folks that bear repeating:

Nothing is “just” anything anymore: If you’re thinking you “just” sent that photo to a friend or you “just” made that less-than-savory joke to your private Facebook friends or you “just” acted like a dipstick in public once, welcome to your reality check.

Dad used to tell me stories about guys at work who would tell off-color jokes or poke fun at each other in ways that boggle my mind. I don’t know if it’s so much that these things were terrible or if now I’m just so attuned to the crap storm that could come from those jokes or putdowns that freak me out.

I like to think that it’s half of a piece of each, in that more people had thicker skin while fewer people were perpetually offended and that we have evolved to prevent some truly unsavory behavior in the work environment.

Either way, we are clearly beyond getting free passes in life with the justification of, “C’mon, it was just…”

 

Everything is public: I don’t like that everything I do is public these days or that someone could decide, “Hey, it’s F— with Filak Time!” and look for a McDonald’s receipt I was writing stupid crap on back in 1998 or something.  However, that’s the field I’m in and that’s the reality of our surroundings.

You can avoid a lot of this by not being online as much or not sharing as much stuff online, but for digital natives, media operatives and anyone under the age of 60 who wants to remain part of broader society, that’s a tough ask.

This is why paranoia is my best friend, why I try to count to 10 before I write anything out of anger and I always imagine the headline in the Advance-Titan of “UWO professor suspended for (Dumb thing I’m thinking about doing)” before I do anything.

It doesn’t solve everything, but it does tend to keep me more centered than I would otherwise be.

 

Know the rules: This more applies to the first case, as opposed to the second one, although understanding “one coupon per table” before losing your mind on a server has a tangential connection here.

When social media first emerged, a lot of people running organizations were in their 50s and 60s and they knew two things about it: 1) They didn’t know what it was or how it worked and 2) They wanted to use it somehow for the betterment of their organization.

Thus, they tended to turn to young people who had grown up a bit with this and really didn’t give them any major rules. It was like the Wild West, although I’d argue you could probably do more damage with one tweet than you could with a trusty six-shooter back in the day.

Once things started to go haywire, due to missteps by the posters or generally not paying attention well enough to the hashtags involved in other posts, the leaders at those places started putting some basic rules in place. By now, most places have a pretty solid rule book on what people can and can’t do on social media, which includes where and when they can or can’t do it.

One of the things most organizations (and the cops who tend to pull Amy over) say is, “Not knowing the rules is no excuse for not following them.” This is why it’s important, upon getting a new job, to know what it is that you can and can’t do, especially in terms of your outward-facing presence.

I know there are things I can’t put up in my office (political endorsement signs) and things that probably could get me in trouble if they upset people (Vintage Cleveland Baseball nodders come to mind). There are also things that are a little more nebulous, like, “What is the rule of the thumb on using my computer to blog like this?”

Long story short, it pays to know what the rules are before they become problematic. And it also pays not to be a racist ass-hat, even if you don’t think people will call you out for it.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Khalil, you need to watch his case

THE LEAD: Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University and a legal U.S. resident, was picked up in an ICE raid Saturday and faces deportation. Khalil was a leading voice in the Palestine protests on the university’s campus last spring.

Khalil was detained Saturday night as he and his wife were returning to their Columbia University-owned apartment in upper Manhattan by officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The agents told the couple that Khalil was being detained because his student visa had been revoked.

When his wife provided documents proving he was a green card holder, the agents said that was also being revoked and took him away in handcuffs, according to a lawsuit Khalil’s attorneys filed challenging his detention.

President Donald Trump discussed the matter in a social media post in which he supported the arrest and potential deportation, calling Khalil a “terrorist sympathizer” for his stand on the Palestine situation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio concurred, saying Khalil’s protest actions were “aligned with Hamas” and thus it was acceptable to revoke his green card (and his marriage to a U.S. citizen, I guess) and deport him.

A court held up his deportation and his lawyers will be arguing Wednesday that he’s essentially being punished for exercising free speech.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER FLASHBACK: We talked about the issues related to protests last year when a number of campuses were dealing with upheaval and cracking down on students who peaceably assembled. As we noted back then, you can’t just support free speech when it’s speech you like. The same is essentially true for all of the other aspects of the First Amendment.

In other words, if you’re cool with people standing up for Side A of an issue, you have to be cool with people standing up for Side B of that issue. As long as the protests and speech don’t run afoul of what the law has already stated as being out of bounds (fighting words, child porn etc.), the Bill of Rights protects those actions.

 

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: You could easily make an argument that this is one guy, speaking out on a topic in a way that a lot of people don’t like, so it shouldn’t really matter.

You could make that argument and it would be both dead wrong and dangerous.

The actions here underlie a broader set of concerns for anyone who supports free expression. Earlier in March, the president noted he would crack down on colleges and universities that allowed for “illegal protests” to persist. It wasn’t clear what made something an “illegal protest” in the eyes of this administration, but I imagine that the translation would be “anything the president doesn’t like.”

Anyone who has an opinion about anything should probably be concerned about this approach, even if you disagree with everything Khalil stands for. Without legal protections for expression, it could be just a matter of time before whatever you think is worth talking about could land you in prison under some sort of trumped up charge.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE: Again, I don’t like a lot of speech or protests, and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t agree with most of what Khalil has to say. That’s not the point of sticking up for his rights.

The law has long held that the government can’t suppress speech it doesn’t like, but it seems like we’re living in some sort of parallel universe right now where the government tends to do something beyond the pale and ask questions later. The Elon Musk line about how the administration will “make mistakes” but fix them up once they realize they made a mistake is a bad idea in general, but it’s even worse when it come to the inalienable rights associated with our country’s founding.

If the courts give the administration a pass and say, “Well, it’s just this one guy and, yeah, screw Palestine anyway,” it sets a dangerous precedent for when someone else upsets this administration. The cure for speech we don’t like is not to crush that speech. It’s more speech that presents a counterbalance to the original speech.

Even if the courts let this guy go, we still have the problem of how these actions have the potential to chill speech throughout the country. It’s like a bad parent smacking a kid in the head for voicing an opinion. That kid is probably not going to pipe up again, but the rest of the kids in that family are probably also going to keep their mouths shut.

That’s not how we’re supposed to roll as the United States.

Time flies when you’re not scavenging for toilet paper: The Fifth Anniversary of COVID

It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that it was just five years ago that the entire world was turned upside down. In some ways, it seems so much longer and in others, it feels like just yesterday that we were all washing our mail, rationing Clorox wipes and storming grocery stores like it was the Invasion of Normandy in search of toilet paper.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published the first “COVID at Five Years” story I’ve seen, although I’m sure there will be more if journalists can find the time and discipline not to chase every “We’re gonna buy Nova Scotia and turn it into a car wash” brain twitch coming out of the White House. In looking back, the MJS hit on some things that COVID ushered into our social conscious:

Beyond the grim health toll, the cultural impact has been substantial. We learned about PPEs and contact tracing. We mark time as “before COVID” and “after COVID.” We use phrases like “jumping on a Zoom call,” talk about “the new normal,” and ask about “curbside pickup.”

More than anything, we felt and discussed isolation. Talk to bartenders or baristas, psychologists or scientists, and it’s as if a larger-than-typical chunk of our population lost, or in the case of young people never developed, the ability to have what once were normal social interactions.

The effects of social isolation on mental health “didn’t have boundaries,” said Dr. Pam Wilson, vice president of medical affairs at Sixteenth Street Community Health Center. “They affected everyone.”

(As I wrote this, the BBC sent along its look at the outbreak, so now I’m up to two articles.)

What people remember is likely a function of where they were living, what stage in life they were at and how directly this virus impacted them personally. I tend to remember some of the dumbest things possible, even as my wife was a nurse and putting herself at risk to make sure people could receive heath care.

I remember sending an email to the guy who ran our monthly baseball card shows right about this time of the month, asking if he had planned to cancel, as things were starting to get weird up here. His initial response was, “Nah, this is all overblown. See you in a couple weeks.”

I didn’t see him again for more than two years.

I also remember watching every university around me starting to close and shift to online learning. My reporting class was getting edgy, as they had a 24-hour Midterm From Hell about to begin. One kid asked me two days before we were about to start it, “What if they shut the university down before this happens?”

“Look, folks, we’re behind people, but I tend to think that if they were going to shut us down, they would have done it by now,” I said.

After class, I opened my email to find the, “We’re going into hibernation, run for the hills” email that got us into distance learning for the year or two.

The rest was a blur of random weirdness, although I have to admit we got really lucky that Amy put us in for monthly toilet paper deliveries about a year earlier and apparently we don’t use as much as Amazon liked to send each month. Before COVID, I was grousing about having to store cases of TP. During COVID, I felt borderline opulent in using the bathroom.

I remember putting together “care packages” for my parents, who would drive up and visit from the other end of the driveway. Extra toilet paper, Clorox wipes, books of puzzles and anything else I could find. I also remember that about two months earlier, my dad and I bought a sports card collection of more than 3 million cards. (No, that’s not a typo. It filled the back of a U-Haul.)

I would pull out boxes of cards and put them with the care package so Dad could keep himself busy by sorting and pricing cards during the pandemic. Given his general twitchiness, I imagine that keeping him plied with cards might have saved his marriage, or even kept my mother from burying him in a shallow grave in the backyard.

The point of this recall is not just to mark time, but also to look for opportunities to do some good reporting now. The obvious stories are things like, “What was it like for us five years ago?”  or “What did we do then that now seems ridiculous?” (Washing the mail comes to mind…)

However, there are now ways to dig into issues like long COVID, digital isolation (why have a meeting when you can have a Zoom?), mental health impacts, changes to education (a snow day apparently is no longer a snow day thanks to distance learning) and other similar changes.

It might also be worth asking what we learned overall from this kind of thing? Whenever I used to hear people talking about majoring in “supply-chain management,” I thought it meant they needed a major and they planned to work for their dad’s company. Now? I know how important that is. Same thing with people who worked in labs and planned for the zombie apocalypse. I have a lot better understanding of why I should care about washing my hands and not licking door knobs.

The point is, now would be a good time to take a retrospective look at what happened and what we now know about life on the other side of the pandemic.

It might even help us avoid another one.