Ethics

A Mob Shakedown, Chump Change or An Affront to The Foundations of The Country: Framing Paramount’s $16M Settlement With President Trump

This interview, which literally and figuratively did absolutely nothing to the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, was at the core of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against “60 Minutes.” 

THE LEAD: Paramount agreed late Tuesday to pay $16 million to settle President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the editing of a Kamala Harris interview on “60 Minutes” that Trump deemed fraudulent and deceptive.

Trump sued Paramount in November for $10 billion, claiming the editing of the interview created “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” of the 2024 election toward Harris.

Experts had long noted that the suit was frivolous and that Trump had a better shot of quarterbacking the Cleveland Browns to a Super Bowl title this year than he did of winning this case. Still, the parent company of “60 Minutes” took the settlement route, as a corporate sale of several billion dollars seemed to be at risk if it didn’t:

Many lawyers had dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit as baseless and believed that CBS would have ultimately prevailed in court, in part because the network did not report anything factually inaccurate, and the First Amendment gives publishers wide leeway to determine how to present information.

But Shari Redstone, the chair and controlling shareholder of Paramount, told her board that she favored exploring a settlement with Mr. Trump. Some executives at the company viewed the president’s lawsuit as a potential hurdle to completing a multibillion-dollar sale of the company to the Hollywood studio Skydance, which requires the Trump administration’s approval.

After weeks of negotiations with a mediator, lawyers for Paramount and Mr. Trump worked through the weekend to reach a deal ahead of a court deadline that would have required both sides to begin producing internal documents for discovery, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

FRAMING THE OUTCOME: We talked about Framing Theory a few months back, but for a brief recap, the idea is that how the media chooses to focus on an issue can shape how people in general will look at that issue. In this case, here are three I’ve seen pop up:

The Mob Shakedown: In most good gangster movies and TV shows, a scene emerges that showcases how to threaten someone without actually threatening them. It’s a pure demonstration of the power the “Don,” the “boss” or the “enforcer” has: Force someone to do something they don’t want to do out of pure fear of what otherwise might happen.

The shakedown scene usually starts with the gangster offering “friendship” or “protection” for a business owner, explaining that the world is a dangerous place and that a lot of bad things can happen. So, for a small percentage of the owner’s finances, this gangster will keep those bad things at bay.

If the owner protests, the gangster tends to get a little more specific while still being vague, offering “God forbid” scenarios like how a mysterious fire could burn the business to the ground or how a random act of violence could lead to the owner being hospitalized for serious injuries. However, fortunately, a payment to this “ambassador of goodwill” can pretty much eliminate those possibilities:

(This was the best “shakedown” scene I could find from any TV show or movie that a) didn’t use enough F-bombs to destroy an underground nuclear bunker, b) use other pejorative language regarding someone’s race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or pet preference and c) didn’t actually use the violence that was suggested earlier in the clip. Still, it’s not pure enough for totally virgin ears, so watch at your discretion.)

In the Paramount case, the company had a multi-billion-dollar deal waiting in the wings, but it needed “the Don’s” blessing to go through and a lot of terrible things can happen to a deal if, God forbid, the FCC decided to look reeeeeeealllly closely at it. I mean, who knows what might happen to all that money? If Paramount lost that deal just because of a little misunderstanding it could make right with this “60 Minutes” thing? Hey… I’m just saying…

Of course, the Trump administration definitely wasn’t doing that:

Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has said the president’s lawsuit against Paramount was not linked to the F.C.C.’s review of the company’s merger with Skydance. Paramount has also said the two issues were unrelated.

Right. And the business owner got that black eye and broken arm after “accidentally” falling down a flight of stairs before coming to the conclusion that protection money is a small price to pay for proper piece of mind.

 

Chump Change: If you look at some of the more successful campaigns to get money out of people, they tend to be the ones that appear to be the least taxing or consequential. Case in point, each year, my alma mater (or maters) send me a pledge card, asking for a “gift” of between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars. Those always go right in the trash without a second thought.

That said, I have a hard time recalling the last time I refused to “round up” at the grocery store, the hardware store or anywhere else for whatever charity the business was repping at the time. It’s like, “Hell, I’m already $132.47 into the Kroeger Family at this point. What’s another 53 cents for a good cause?”

In addition, I’ve seen people drop a few coins in a parking lot and refuse to pick them up, folks at rummage sales drop the “and XX cents” on a customer’s total and other similar maneuvers that basically just round off a relatively insignificant amount of cash.

Thus, the concept of “chump change.”

I personally have a hard time thinking about $16 million as “chump change,” but everything in life is relative, as noted in this clip from “The Social Network:”

I suppose if I’m looking at it from the perspective of a multi-billion-dollar company that wants to make several billion dollars on a deal, giving up $16 million isn’t a lot to make things happen. I also suppose that if a collections company told me I owed $1,000 to a creditor, but I could pay it off today for $1.60, I’d probably avoid the argument and fork over the cash. (Trust me on this one: The comparative math is solid.)

To Paramount, this is the cost of doing business. It’s rounding up at the register to move things along. It’s chump change.

 

An Affront to The Foundations of The Country:  After the news broke about the Paramount capitulation, it might have felt like time stood still for a few minutes. That’s probably because when Edward R. Murrow, Katherine Graham, Walter Cronkite, Ben Bradlee and David Brinkley (among other journalists) started simultaneously started spinning in their graves, the Earth found itself dealing with that “Superman The Movie” trick:

We’ve discussed SLAPP suits here before, where people with virtually no case whatsoever sue for a ton of money to get people to back off. In many of those cases, the defendants lack the sufficient means to truly stand their ground and fight back on behalf of truth, justice and the American way, so they knuckle under.

In this situation, Paramount had the funds, the legal might and the legal precedents to stand up for all the mom and pop media operations (whatever of those are left) and tell the president where to put his suit. Paramount also had the opportunity to stand up for the free press and free speech rights that have defined the country for generations.

It’s something Graham and Bradlee did before when a president came at them. It’s something Murrow did in a time in which a demagogue rattled this country to its core. It’s something so many other journalists and journalism operations have done in big and small ways to reassure us all that our rights are not a “when it’s convenient to people in power” thing.

But a funny thing happened on the way to our current predicament. News outlets are now part of larger conglomerates with larger concerns. TV news always lost money, relative to other programming, but it was seen as part of the deal: You give us quality news, we let you use the public airwaves. Newspapers use to make money and hold sway over larger groups of people. Furthermore, they weren’t part of a collective that also did entertainment programming, sold time shares, controlled real estate and answered to shareholders. Their concern was doing the news well and defending their right to do it.

For Paramount, “60 Minutes” is a “property” of the company, just like all the other stuff they put on TV. If an episode of “School Spirits” pissed off enough people to prevent a multi-billion-dollar deal from happening, they’d kill it or edit it or pay off someone, too. Cost of doing business. That’s the company’s view. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

However, when one company lets the powerful dictate the news based on threats like this suit, it undermines the strength of those First Amendment rights for everyone else.

’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.

 

 

 

How AI “expert sources” have duped journalists and four tips on how to avoid being the next victim

 

Meet Elizabeth Hubbell, a 25-year-old skin-care expert who is willing to be a great source for your next story on anything makeup or skin-care related. She’s actually completely fabricated. Her picture came from an AI generation site and her name is a combination of my car (Betsy) and a baseball player whose card I had laying around (Carl Hubbell). Careful. It’s dangerous out there…

When it comes to doing interviews, I always tell students they need to do them in person.  In response, they often look at me like I’m asking them to use a teletype machine or some semaphore flags. It’s easier, faster and more convenient for both parties if they can do a text, a chat or an email interview, the students say.

I argue that the face-to-face interview allows for a deeper connection for profile and feature pieces. This approach also can prevent sources in news stories from weaseling out of answers they could otherwise work through via several drafts of an email. Plus, if I spend some time in the source’s environment, I can probably find a personal effect that could give us something to talk about, like a family photo, a kid’s drawing or a sports item. At the very least, it’ll help with scene setting.

Apparently, there’s another good reason for my approach these days: Your easy-to-access, extremely helpful, expert source might be AI:

Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, anyone can generate comment, on any subject, in an instant.

It is a technology that appears to have fuelled a rise in expert commentators who have appeared widely in national newspapers but who are either not real, not what they seem to be or at the very least have CVs which do not justify their wide exposure in major newsbrands.

The rise in dubious commentators has been fuelled by companies that charge the PR industry in order to share quotes via email with journalists who have submitted requests for comment.

Journalist Rob Waugh found that in a number of cases, digital outlets were mass-generating content from these supposed experts, giving everyone from news journalists to PR practitioners the exact the quote or information they needed on a wide array of topics. However, when challenged to engage more deeply regarding who they are or what they have done in life, the “sources” suddenly had difficulty:

She has been quoted in Fortune talking about “loud budgeting” and by Business.com talking about the best countries in which to obtain a business education (both sites are based in the US).

A profile on Academized describes her as a “biochemist and science educator”. The same byline picture also crops up on a publisher called Leaddev, for someone called Sara Sparrow. Rebecca Leigh has written for DrBicuspid.com about how to write a business plan for your dental practice where she is described as a writer for Management Essay and Lija Help (two online writing services).

When challenged via email to do something that would be difficult to do with AI image-generating software (send an image of herself with her hand in front of her face) or prove that she was an environment expert, Rebecca stopped communicating.

One AI source, “Barbara Santini,” was particularly prolific in the volume and array of topics she could cover for journalists. Waugh found this roster of publications that had included Santini quotes:

She has been quoted in The Guardian talking about the benefits of walking (paid content), in Newsweek talking about white lies, Marie Claire talking about the meaning of money, the Daily Mirror talking about the benefits of sleeping with your dog, in The Sun talking about sexual positions, Pop Sugar talking about astrology, and Mail Online talking about how often to change your pillow.

Santini was recently quoted in a BBC article examining the lifelike responses of AI to Rorschach tests used by some psychologists saying: “If an AI’s response resembles a human’s, it’s not because it sees the same thing but it’s because its training data mirrors our collective visual culture.”

Despite her ability to be all knowing and wise, Santini apparently couldn’t receive phone calls, a relatively easy giveaway that the “person” on the other end is AI. Waugh also found other examples of journalists who were getting taken for a ride by an AI source, including one case where the non-human pitched a sob story about breast cancer survival:

“Seeing my scarred chest in the mirror was a constant reminder of what I had lost,” Kimberly Shaw, 30, told me in an emotional email.

She had contacted me through Help a Reporter Out, a service used by journalists to find sources. I cover skincare and had been using the site to find people for a story about concealing acne scars with tattoos.

<SNIP>

Shaw’s experience may not have been relevant to my acne story, but it tapped into the same feelings of empowerment and control I wanted to explore. Thinking she could inspire a powerful new piece, I emailed her back.

But after days of back-and-forth conversations, something in Shaw’s emails began to feel a little off. After idly wondering to my boyfriend whether she could be a fake, he suggested that I run the emails through a text checker for artificial intelligence.

The result was unequivocal: Shaw’s emails had been machine-generated. I’d been interviewing an AI the entire time.

As a result of Waugh’s story, a number of these information clearinghouses have tried to cull their ranks of AI “experts” while the deceived publications have retooled or removed the stories with fake people in them. Although the founder of one of these “expert mills” blamed much of the situation on “lazy journalists,” he kind of gave up the game a bit when it came to explaining why these platforms don’t prevent the frauds from gaining access in the first place:

Darryl Willcox, who founded ResponseSource in 1997 and sold it in 2018, says that the simplicity and speed of platforms like ResponseSource is key to their appeal and that attempts to add authentication risk slowing down the system.

Willcox said: “The other factor which complicates things a little bit is that these platforms are quite an open system. Once a journalist makes a request they can be forwarded around organisations, and sometimes between them, and often PR agencies are acting for multiple parties, and they will be forwarded onto their many clients.”

In other words, “If we slowed down to make sure things were accurate, we wouldn’t be as appealing as we want to be.” Eeesh.

So what can you to to avoid quoting a fake person? The overarching theme is basically, “Don’t be a lazy journalist,” but here are a few more specific tips:

TRUST, BUT VERIFY: The old Russian proverb really comes into play here and for good reason. I often say that paranoia is my best friend and has kept me out of a ton of problems. To that larger point, not only did I click on every link I could find in Waugh’s story, I also Googled the hell out of Waugh himself. Why? I imagined that it would be the most epic “Punk’d” moment on Earth if the media world was flocking to this story about AI screwing with journalists, only to find out that Rob Waugh was also an AI fake. I found LinkedIn, X, Bluesky, media staff pages and at least a dozen photos. I wouldn’t bet the house on the fact he’s real, but I’d probably bet the lawn tractor.

This can be harder in situations like the one involving the cancer scammer, as regular people tend not to have as big of a social media presence or digital footprint. That said, even regular people under the age of retirement should have left a few breadcrumbs out there for you to find.

KICK THE TIRES: If you can’t find the person clearly through a digital search, feel free to play a little game of 20 Questions to see if you can get some things ironed out. Experts who have kicked the tires on a few bots can offer you specific ways to ask questions that will tend to ferret out fakers. The author in the cancer-scam story revealed that asking for specific photos based on prior conversations can be helpful as well.

I learned about this kind of thing in trying to defeat scams when it came to buying sports memorabilia. When unknown sellers offered either exactly what I wanted when I couldn’t find it anywhere else or provided me with a ridiculously low price for something I knew should cost more, the pros who had been around the block a few times suggested I ask the seller to “coin the image.”

What this meant was that I wanted the person to take a picture of the item with a coin (usually asking for either heads or tails, or maybe even a specific coin) so I could tell they had the item and weren’t messing with me. Turned out, that advice helped me dodge a bullet or two. As weird as it might seem, asking someone to take a picture with their left hand raised or holding a quarter with “heads” showing might help you avoid a problem.

MEET IN PERSON: Again, this is the most obvious one to suggest. If you meet a person, in person, it’s a pretty safe bet that you can consider them real. The rest of the stuff (Are they the expert they claim to be? Did they really do what they say they did? Do they actually have cancer?) remains a risk without substantial additional reporting, but at least you’ll know they exist.

If that can’t happen for legitimate reasons (the person lives too far away etc.), look for other ways to get some human connection with the source. That could be a Zoom/Teams/Whatever video chat or an actual phone call at an actual phone number. In the cases where the frauds proliferated, it was pretty clear that the only connection between the source and the journalist was through a keyboard. That’s especially dangerous when you don’t have a prior relationship with a source.

WHEN IN DOUBT, DO WITHOUT: At the end of the day, there is no journalistic rule that says you have to use a source, a quote or a “fact” just because you have it. If you don’t feel comfortable with how a source is providing you with information or you aren’t 100% sure this person is a person, it’s better to leave that source out of your story than it is to run the risk of getting bamboozled.

If you say, “Well, the whole story will fall apart without this one source and I can’t get anyone else to provide me with this information,” maybe that’s more revealing than anything else we’ve said here.

 

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.

 

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.

Former UW La Crosse Chancellor and Porn Actor Joe Gow is Suing the UW System to Get His Professorial Gig Back

UW-La Crosse chancellor Joe Gow fired for producing porn

Former UW La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow at a convocation of some sort, making sure not to go “Elon Musk” on everybody.

THE LEAD: Former UW La Crosse Chancellor and faculty member Joe Gow has filed a federal suit to undo his firing. Gow was fired from each of his positions after it came to light that he and his wife were doing porn and posting the videos online for public consumption.

The lawsuit argues the UW System’s decision to terminate Gow violated the First Amendment and flouted the UW System’s commitment to free expression.

“I think this is an important moment for free speech and I’d like to think this will result in a court saying you can’t fire someone for what they do on the internet on their own time,” Gow, 64, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “It sounds grandiose but maybe we can get people to rethink pornography.”

Milwaukee-based attorney Mark Leitner filed the lawsuit on Gow’s behalf on Monday, the first day of spring semester classes at UW-La Crosse.

 

BACKGROUND: As we previously outlined on the blog, Gow was removed as chancellor in late 2023 once the Board of Regents became aware of his hobby. However, as is the case with most faculty in administrative positions, Gow retained retreat rights that would have put him back in the classroom as a tenured faculty member of the communication department.

The regents apparently decided that the idea of Gow teaching students at a university he led for almost 17 years with few problems was going to be a bridge too far, so they stripped him of his tenure and fired him in 2024. At the time, Gow was in contact with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which helped him find legal counsel for a potential suit.

 

BLOG FLASHBACK: In September, we did a Q and A with Zach Greenberg of FIRE, who was nice enough to walk through the issues associated with the case as well as why FIRE felt this was a First Amendment issue. You can give that a read here.

 

A  FEW UNPLEASANT REMINDERS ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT:

  • The First Amendment is essentially content neutral. It’s not meant to protect expression people like. It’s meant to protect expression people DON’T like. As we explained when universities were trying to take sides on the Israel/Palestine situation, you can’t just defend free speech when you like the speech.
  • To overcome the protections afforded in that amendment, it requires some very specific things: Fighting words, true threats and child porn are among the most clear cut. Something making someone feel uncomfortable or what might happen at some distant point in the future doesn’t clear that bar.
  • The First Amendment is about governmental action, which includes public institutions. As part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the government generally does not possess the right to curtail free speech or free press. If Gow were working at Marquette University when this happened, he’d be out on his ass, no questions asked.

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE: Long story short, this is essentially a game of “chicken” and has been since Gow’s porn stuff first became public knowledge.

Gow almost HAD TO sue, as to let things sit as they were would essentially be saying, “The UW System was right and I shouldn’t have been doing the porn thing.” In the same way, the university system almost HAD TO fire him and then brace for impact, because it’s not like the folks at the State House and State Senate aren’t already looking for 10,002 reasons to cut higher-ed funding in Wisconsin. To let this go would have every fire-and-brimstone legislator screaming about how not a dime of state money should fund “the UW Porn System!”

I also think the idea of him doing porn just makes the regents and Gow’s colleagues feel awkward and icky, so they don’t want to have to deal with him any more. I get it, in that nobody with a half-dozen siblings likes looking at their parents and being forced to think, “Wow, Mom and Dad really got busy a lot…”

Let me be clear: I have no problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want to do together, so long as it’s not breaking the law. I also wouldn’t want to think about my boss doing a Porn Hub channel, nor would I want to see it. However, just because I don’t like something, it doesn’t follow that it shouldn’t exist and the First Amendment serves to protect the rights of all people in that regard.

I understand that certain things can and should lead to people being fired, but I tend to think of most of those as legal matters. Felonies tend to reflect poorly on individuals and therefore the companies that employ them, so that makes sense. Misdemeanors? I guess it depends on what it is, but it is up for debate. If I fail to yield the right of way to a roaming cow out here, I could be fined, but I don’t think I should be fired. Public urination? Yeah, that doesn’t look so great, so maybe…

Gow’s hobby used to be illegal back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the possession, creation and dissemination of pornography was illegal. You know what also used to be illegal back then? My hobby: Pinball.

From the 1940s to the 1970s, laws prohibited the silver-ball games due to their influence of “juvenile delinquency” as well as fear that they were morally bankrupt and would lead to gambling and other vices. In fact, it wasn’t until 1974 that the Supreme Court ruled that pinball was fine and it took until 1976 for New York City to start acting right. That was after both the Stanley v. Georgia ruling and the Miller v. California rulings that made porn passable in the country.

Back then, both were criminal offenses. Today, it’s totally cool for me to tell my students, “Hey, I’m working on a pinball machine I just bought,” while it’s less acceptable for Gow to announce in a classroom, “Hey, I’m working on a new film for Only Fans!”

The one thing I’m constantly left wondering in situations like this one, and the Sam Kuffel case we discussed Monday, is this: Exactly how much of my life does my employer have a right to control and who draws those lines?

The Sam Kuffel Kerfuffle: CBS58 in Milwaukee “Parts Ways” with a Meteorologist Who Complained about the “Elon Musk Nazi/Not-A-Nazi Salute” on Social Media

Sam Kuffel, meteorologist for CBS 58 in MilwaukeeSam Kuffel via the station’s old Facebook post.

THE LEAD: CBS58 in the Milwaukee TV market “parted ways” with meteorologist Sam Kuffel after the weather caster posted her displeasure about Elon Musk’s “hand gestures” on her social media account.

The 31-year-old graduate of UWM had been doing TV weather reporting around the state of Wisconsin since about 2016. The posts she made after the inauguration were being lambasted on Milwaukee conservative talk radio.

In one post on her personal Instagram account, Kuffel posted a picture of Musk at the podium, saying, “Dude Nazi saluted twice. TWICE. During the inauguration.”

She added, “You (expletive) with this and this man, I don’t (expletive) with you. Full stop.”

Kuffel then posted a GIF from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” on Instagram along with the saying, “Screw that old (expletive). He’s a Nazi.”

By late Tuesday, she had made her Instagram account private.

Kuffel told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on Friday that she was, in fact, fired for the posts. She noted that she was “just voicing my personal opinion” on her private Instagram account, adding she was still processing the situation and weighing her options.

BACKGROUND: In case you were on Mars or one of the other planets Musk is apparently planning to conquer and missed it, Musk spoke after President Donald Trump’s swearing in and made two sweeping arm gestures.

For the sake of bending over backwards to provide a benefit of the doubt, let’s just say that those gestures had the same movement, angle, finger-stretch and general stridency associated with the “Sieg Heil” salute used during the Nazi Regime.

Musk repeatedly makes gesture likened to 'Nazi salute' at Trump rally

Unless there is a guy out of frame getting ready to hi-five Musk for an “and one” play during the NBA playoffs, this doesn’t look all that great.

The Anti-Defamation League asked everyone to take a breath and relax after the “awkward gesture,” noting that we should all be giving each other some grace in this time of transition. The ADL later condemned Musk, grace period be damned,  after he took to Twitter/X and made some Nazi jokes about the situation.

Musk previously took heat for the antisemitism he allowed to foment on his Twitter/X platform, as well as his retweeting (or whatever we’re calling it now) of antisemitism. In 2023-24, as part of his “apology tour,” he ended up visiting Israel as well as taking a tour of the Auschwitz death camp.

In addition, he has endorsed the AfD, the far-right wing of German politics, and recently told an AfD rally audience that they need to “move past” the history they have related to the Nazi movement and get over “past guilt.”

A FEW BASIC (POSSIBLY UNPLEASANT) REMINDERS ABOUT FREE SPEECH: When a situation like Sam Kuffel’s hits the public eye, comments related to free speech, free press and other similar “rights” start flying all over the web and social media. To better deal with the situation, it’s important to keep a few basic rules of the game in mind:

The First Amendment is about the government: As part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the government generally does not possess the right to curtail free speech or free press. What we’re talking about in the Kuffel case is a private enterprise making a decision about the activities of one of its employees. That’s different.

Law and ethics are completely different things: People have complained in various forums that the station should have stuck up for one of its own and kept Kuffel on the air. The question of if the news station SHOULD have fired her is one of ethics. The question of CAN the station fire her is one of the law. (See point one)

SOME ADDITIONAL UNPLEASANT REMINDERS: This situation mixes several key reminders I have to give my students each semester. These include:

  • Free speech (even when properly understood vis a vis the First Amendment) does not mean consequence-free speech. You can publish without fear of government intervention, but many other things can happen to you in court or the court of public opinion in terms of consequences for what you say.
  • Despite Kuffel’s contention that it was a “private” account, there is no such thing as private social media. Just ask this person. Or this person. Social media is available to EVERYONE and even if you have your settings locked on “double-super-secret-private pinky swear,” there is still a good chance it’s not going to remain “just among friends.”
  • In most cases, where you work has a social media policy in place that is meant to keep your posts as sanitized as a bleach bath and as sharp as a bag of cotton balls. Know what it says before you violate it and find yourself looking for work.
  • Think before you post.

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE: Getting rid of Kuffel probably did a lot more harm than good in a number of obvious and oblique ways. I could do this for days, but let’s pick out a few key ones:

The optics are bad: Nothing says, “We are a proud member of the Fourth Estate,” like tossing the WEATHER PERSON under the bus after she made a stupid social media post. What? Were the higher-ups at the station worried that her disdain for Musk might lead to inaccurate forecasts over the next few months? (Spoiler Alert: She’s doing the weather in Wisconsin. It’s cold, colder and “holy crap, are your nostrils freezing together?” frigid.)

Seriously, you’re talking about a person best known for a weird weather beef with Erin Andrews. Her most recent piece for the station was about “pancake ice.” If you really worry about bias on the staff, start by getting Lance Allen to ask harder questions at the Packers press conferences.

If the theory is that if anyone at the station does something bad, then everyone at the station comes into question, OK. However, how is it that the station was totally cool hiring a journalist who got arrested at a Brewers game after a fistfight with another reporter? (Side note: Don’t include the phrase “is no stranger to Milwaukee, though” in his official station bio.)

Also, if you’re willing to dump the weather person, what happens when a news reporter wants to do a story that might lead to some upset people? If I worked there, I’d be asking for the “puppy and kitten beat” for the next few years.

You essentially killed a fly with a sledgehammer: Most of the experts that the news reports tried to find a balance in their comments. That said, they tended to agree that a) if there’s a policy that says “don’t call someone a Nazi on social media, even if they are a Nazi or we will fire you,” Kuffel likely had no cover and b) firing her seemed like overkill.

On point a, it’s likely not a policy like that. It’s probably some mushy “morals and standards” thing that the lawyers built into everyone’s contract to give them the right to fire anyone that the station felt did the company dirty. In those cases, it’s “fire her and let’s see if she’ll fight it.”

On point b, the station really did try to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. Kuffel was essentially saying what a lot of people were saying, although she used some “saltier” language to do it. It wasn’t on air, it wasn’t on the station’s social media and it probably wouldn’t have been a huge deal if we hadn’t suddenly become “Snitch Nation.” (More on that later.)

When local conservative radio host Jay Weber called Tim Walz’s neurodivergent son, Gus, “a blubbering bitch boy,” on his social media account, he got a two-week suspension. Greg Doyel of the Indy Star received a similar “time out” after a press conference exchange in which he awkwardly requested Caitlin Clark to flash him a “love sign” after each game. The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel only got a month suspension for a retweet  that noted “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”

The last instance I can find of a media outlet firing a journalist in a way that drew public attention is when New York Magazine cut Olivia Nuzzi loose. In that case, she’d profiled RFK Jr. but also had been sexting him and sending him nudes, according to media reports.

Google “reporter suspended” and “reporter fired” and you’ll a good number of examples to decide which category Kuffel’s situation best mirrors.

 

You embolden Snitch Nation: This is the kind of thing that probably wouldn’t have gotten much traction, if not for the amplification of outrage that is local talk radio. Conservative media host Dan O’Donnell basically lit the “Bat Signal” in this case, criticizing Kuffel’s posts and working his audience into a lather over it. At that point, the station decided it had to do something to move out of the crosshairs of O’Donnell and crew, so they canned Kuffel.

This sets a precedent that any decent third-grade teacher will tell you is bad: Someone does something that’s maybe not all that great and a giant tattletale starts yelling “OOOHHHH! MS. SMITH! MS. SMITH! MS. SMITH! DID YOU SEE WHAT SAM DID?????,” thus getting everyone else to start yelling, “OOOOHHH!!! SAM’S IN TROUBLE!!!” Thus, rather than apply grown-up logic, you overreact and whip out the punishment stick to get the noise to stop.

What that does is a) make everyone afraid of the loud tattletale and b) make it seem like being a tattletale is how everyone should act. Not a great idea. I can’t wait to find out what happens if O’Donnell gets a whiff of this blog post…

(SIDE NOTE: You’d think a guy with high honors at a top-flight law school and a background in media himself would have better things to do than bullying a local meteorologist, but maybe that’s just my take…)

Letting loud idiots dictate your behavior doesn’t eliminate the problem. It literally leads to much bigger ones.

A MODEST PROPOSAL: As I was talking to Mom last night, she asked when the blog would be coming back and if I’d be covering this. After I assured her it was already half written, she asked what I thought would happen next on this. My answer is probably too logical and easy to make happen, but here it is:

If I had control of Weigel Broadcasting Co., CBS 58’s parent company, I’d quietly approach Kuffel and offer her another job at one of the other affiliates in the network, with the promise that Kuffel won’t sue for wrongful termination. This takes a potentially ugly legal battle off the table, gives Kuffel essentially a “suspension” instead of the death penalty and the company gets to keep a solid broadcast meteorologist.

I would also review the social media policies for the entire company and make sure a) they’re air tight, b) everyone gets a refresher course and c) the penalties for whatever will happen get spelled out clearly. This might also be a good time to let the news staff know where the network stands on backing its reporters if things get dicey or if anyone throws up a hissy fit. Or a Nazi salute.

An open letter to Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway: Media folks don’t like dealing with the death of kids any more than you do, so please don’t treat them like crap

Dear Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway,

I saw the comments you made to a gaggle of reporters in the wake of the Abundant Life school shooting, in which you basically accused working journalists of being pain vampires, who live off the misery of others. You chastised these folks for asking legitimate questions, told them to have some “human decency” as if that never occurred to them and then shamed them with a “y’all” that could only come from someone who spent most of their life in the land of Yankees.

I don’t know what compelled you to castigate the media at large in that press conference. It might have been just the stress of the day or it might have been previous experiences with a few bad folks in the field. I can tell you for sure that, just like in politics, there are good and bad people in journalism. And, just like in politics, the lousy ones tend to make the biggest impressions and do the most damage for the whole lot of folks. If I had to wager, I’d say that most of the people in that media cluster would have gladly been covering ANYTHING ELSE that day than a school shooting.

I let this post sit for a day or two, in the hopes that you would issue some sort of apology for this, even if it were completely insincere, so that we could all go back to doing what we’re good at: Media folks covering the news, you not pretending to be a journalism expert. Unfortunately, the PR people who advise you are apparently no better than you are, so I thought I’d offer a few insights on what this situation is like for news people.

I spent three years as a reporter, another five as an editor and then about 15 as a newsroom adviser, and in every case, I’ve had to deal with stories involving dead kids. This is not a morbid flex, but rather a chance to help you understand where I’m coming from.

All those things you said at the press conference? Hell, I’ve been told worse and more loudly by far more traumatized people than you. I’ve been called a vulture, a scumbag, a waste of life and a few other things that could peel the paint off of a car. The hardest one was the lady who told me that “Your mother must not have raised you right, if you think what you’re doing is appropriate.”

Believe it or not, journalists are actually human. Sure, we’re really good at hiding it a lot, but we have the same emotional range as most other bipeds you’ve encountered. If you felt pain, agony, shock, angst or anything along those lines, it’s safe to say that the people who were asking questions of you that day did as well.

If you think that reporters in that gaggle are going to enjoy talking to sobbing parents and bothering traumatized kids before heading home for a nice casserole supper, you’re delusional. This kind of thing sticks with most people for a long time, and journalists are no exception.

When my students would ask me about my experiences writing about death and mayhem, I told them that I could remember the name, age and cause of death of every dead kid I ever covered. It’s been decades since I was reporting and editing, but it’s still true.

Casey Rowin, Shawn Magrane, Matthew Dunn,  Deanna Turner… those names and a dozen more stick with me every day. I think about Rachael Himmelberg, the infant who died after receiving what should have been life-saving open heart surgery. She would be in her late 20s now and I wonder what she would be doing. I think of Jordan Sosa, who died at 22 months old when he wandered out of his grandparents’ house and fell into the Black Earth Creek. He might have been a college student of mine, if he hadn’t drown that day.

My first year at Ball State, we had five college kids die of various causes: Michael McKinney was shot to death by a cop,  Karl Harford was robbed and executed after giving some guys a ride… accidents, suicides and more… I remember one of the more veteran editors of the paper, who had lived in Muncie his entire life telling me, “This is not normal for us around here…” like he was trying to convince both of us that what he was saying was true.

The editor also asked me, “How did you get so good at covering stuff like this?”

My answer was simple and I think most journalists would be on board with it: “You don’t get good at doing this. You become more experienced in doing the best you can. If you ever get to a point where you feel you’re good at covering dead kids, it means you are really broken and you need to walk away for a good, long while.”

Each dead kid we cover is like a wound we receive, the scar a permanent reminder of what it was to be there in the worst moment of someone else’s life. Each mistake we made in how we phrased a question or how we approached a source still stings. Each time we did the best we could and still faced the wrath of a pained family member or friend brings about a wince and grimace.

You mentioned that reporters should go away and give people a chance to grieve. Despite your apparent thoughts on the state of media today, reporters can be a crucial component of that grieving process. I go back to what Kelly Furnas, the adviser of student media at Virginia Tech, said to his students as they went out to cover what remains the deadliest shooting on a college campus:

“The students I talked to were terrified of the fact that they would need to call these families and I said, ‘You don’t assume that these families don’t want to talk,’” Furnas said, recalling that day at a college media conference a few months after the shooting. “That’s a very important thing to these families to tell the story of their son’s or daughter’s lives. That’s a very important thing. A lot of people not only want to do it, but expect to do it.”

I can tell you for sure that this holds water. When it came to the dead people I covered in one way or another, I got one of three reactions 99% of the time:

  1. “I just can’t… I’m sorry…” These people were already at the maximum level of stress and pain and they were just incapable of dealing with anything else at that point. I would apologize for intruding on their grief and then leave them alone.
  2. “You #%*%ing VULTURE!” Yep, we talked about that already. This reaction gave me a ton of anxiety and pain, but I understood. It was like putting your hand out toward a wounded animal: They just hurt so badly, they lashed out, regardless of your intent. Again, I’d apologize and back away.
  3. “The pressure-release valve” This is what Kelly was talking about. These people are so full of emotion and they have nowhere to go with it. Everyone around them is feeling the same pain, misery, stress and more… All they want to do is talk about how great their kid was, or how amazing their parent was or whatever stories make them feel less hurt. As a journalist, we’re that opportunity to not only help, but to share their thoughts with others.

So in the future, please feel free not to tell journalists how to do their jobs at a time like this. It’s a job nobody wants, no one revels in and few people can do and remain unscathed.

If someone asks a particularly crappy question like, “Are there plans to call it ‘Less-Abundant Life’ now that people have died there?” or “Don’t you find it ironic that there was a lot of thoughts and prayers happening in there but the kids still got shot?” go ahead and release your inner scold. That kind of person deserves your wrath.

However, the basic “5Ws and 1H” questions are normal, even if the situation is not and you lack the answers. Everyone is frayed to the nth degree, so you need to operate above the fray. If you can’t, don’t hold the press conference or send someone out there who is actually skilled at PR to do the work for you.

I hope this helps, because I somehow doubt this will be the last time you and the media will spend time together discussing a devastating death or two.

Sincerely,

Vince (a.k.a. The Doctor of Paper)

 

 

When Write Goes Wrong: How to avoid the trap of journalistic fabrication (A Throwback Post)

It’s rare to have a group of students be exceptionally engaged at 8 a.m., but when it came to our ethics lecture today, the room was humming. Tons of hands up, tons of questions, tons of despair.

They had read stories about a drug addict and a rape survivor, seeing how their lives were forever altered by the choices they had made and the choices made for them. They cringed as the description of the these people’s circumstances, they flashed anger about the way in which the people around them had acted and they felt both helpless and compelled to act at the same time.

“I wanted to drive (out there) and beat those people up,” one student said of the people who engaged in the sexual assault.

I let them get all of it out, before I asked them to describe their feelings about these stories in one word or a simple phrase. They came up with things like, “anger,” “disturbed,” “disgusted” and “sad.”

I then took a deep breath and told them the truth: None of these stories were real.

In case you haven’t guessed, they read “Jimmy’s World” by Janet Cooke, “Hack Heaven” by Stephen Glass and “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Erdley. Each story was fabricated in some part or entirely. Each one fooled people at some of the most influential publications in the country. Each one had readers enraptured in a way that only amazing writing and terrifying topics can.

After that brief reveal, I asked the students how they felt now, knowing this new information. The answers were somewhat similar (anger, disgusted) but also different (relieved, stupid). As we shifted the topic toward how NOT to put themselves in this situation, I told them that any time they feel like they want to cut a corner or bend the rules in this kind of way, they should think about how they felt when they found out these stories weren’t real. Then, realize that’s how they’ll be making their own audiences feel if they fake it and get caught.

Today’s throwback piece takes a look at another case of fabrication and some potential things that might help your students come to grips with this issue.

 

 

“Don’t Bring Shame On The Family.” 4 helpful thoughts related to the Mike Ward fabrication debacle

Every time I see a situation like the one involving former Houston Chronicle journalist Mike Ward, who was found to have fabricated sources for his stories, I always think, “What the hell is wrong with this guy (or gal)?” Thanks to my overly Catholic upbringing and the guilt that comes with it, my next immediate thought is, “Hey, there but by the grace of God, go any of us.”

However, at various points in life, family and friends have hit me with a few helpful thoughts that stuck with me that kept me out of a lot of trouble. In hopes that these things might help you in your journalism career (or life in general), here are four of those bits and bites that might be useful:

 

If you’re going to steal something, steal the whole store

My dad can always make sense of things in a way that usually kept me from doing a lot of stupid things. He once told me a simple adage that helped me understand cost/benefit analysis in a truly elementary way.

“If you’re going to steal something,” he said. “Don’t steal a candy bar. Steal the whole store. I mean when they come back in the morning to open up, there should be nothing left but wires sticking out of the ground.”

His point was that once you steal something (or do something else despicable), you were marked for life, so it better be worth it when you throw away everything for it. I have no idea what Mike Ward was best known for before this, but it’s pretty clear he won’t be known for much else other than this going forward.

It’s hard to find a lot of background on Mike Ward, but he’s not like some of the other “fabulists” like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass who was a 20-something who got in over their heads. He spent more than 40 years in the field of journalism and nearly 30 years doing it in the state of Texas. He was working for one of the best newspapers in the state and a well-respected publication overall.

Was it worth throwing away his whole career and reputation to pep up the stories with random quotes that weren’t all that great to begin with? I doubt he thought about it like that, but I know I always let flights of paranoia take me to the worst possible scenario before I even think about “candy-bar-level theft” let alone taking out an entire store.

 

Stupid is bad, lazy is worse

I think this one came from my mother, but I’m not 100 percent sure. In any case, the underlying premise of not being lazy usually was Mom’s stock-and-trade when it came to things I was doing.

I know my general laziness was like a stone in a shoe for my mother. I can’t tell you how many times I’d be doing my homework and yell to Mom, who was in another room, “How do you spell (whatever I didn’t want to bother to look up)?” Her answer was always the same, “Look it up! You have a dictionary in there.” In short, don’t be lazy.

It could be unfair to deem Ward as lazy, but the way in which he seemed to make up random people would indicate at least some corner-cutting behavior.

It’s easy to find sources you use all the time for stories and to get used to those folks being ready to comment. The investigation into his various stories found that most of his “meat and potatoes” official sources were real people with legitimate quotes. Those folks could be interviewed with a quick phone call or a simple email.

The “real people” who hated guns or gun control, who planned to vote for a specific party, who didn’t like that the McRib wasn’t available all year and so forth require some “shoe-leather reporting.” Reporters have to go to local diners, knock on doors with “Don’t Tread On Me” flags flying outside, ask people they know for help finding people they don’t and generally chase around to get that one pancake-eating source who can give you the “salt-of-the-earth person” quote.

That part of the job is a major pain in the keester and it can be awkward as hell. Truth be told, I used to prefer asking people for comments after a shooting or a fire or something else horrible than walking up to a guy eating a funnel cake at the county fair to find out how much fun he was having at the event. Still, it’s part of the job, so I did it, despite the fact people treated me like I was from the KGB when I asked for their names.

Why Ward thought he could pull this off was a mystery, but it would seem to either be a dumb decision or general laziness. Neither of those approaches is good, so do your best to avoid both of them as a journalist.

 

They never did it just once

This one came from a former journalist and great friend of mine who covered the Chicagoland Catholic church molestation scandals of the early 2000s. I used to ask her how she knew for sure that the priests in her stories were serial pedophiles. The information she gathered came from the accusers, usually years or decades later, and was almost impossible to back up with documents or other “official source” content that I had gotten used to using in my own work.

Her answer was simple: She did a ton of digging, verified in every way she could and then she published the content and waited. In almost every case, if she published one or two accusations, she immediately heard from at least three or four other people who told her the same things had happened to them. It was like this scene at the end of “Spotlight.”

“They never did it just once,” Allison told me. “And they always did it the same way.”

She found that if a priest had trapped a child in the 1970s by promising baseball tickets and then luring the young man into his room, he did the same thing in the 1980s and 1990s. It was never a one-off and it was always the same.

Even though the magnitude is in no way the same, I think about this whenever a student mentions that they only cheated on an exam once or only lied about a source once or only did anything else sketchy once. It’s never just once. It’s just that they finally got caught.

When Blair was caught in New York, his student newspaper at the University of Maryland went back and found other fabrications and noted people were alerted to these problems at the time.Ward has a 40-year career in this field and he just got caught now in Houston. I would be willing to bet that this didn’t just happen once and it didn’t just occur to him now to do it. I have no idea how far back people want to go, but it wasn’t “just this once.”

If the thought ever occurs to you to cut the corner “just this once” and make up a source or hide a detail to spare a friend or fake your way through a story, don’t do it. It’s never just once.

It’s only hard the first time. After that, it becomes standard practice without a second thought.

 

Don’t bring shame on the family

I hear this in my head on a daily basis, courtesy of my father.

As I was preparing to go off to college, my mother was a veritable trove of advice, thoughts and wisdom that made “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” seem underwhelming by comparison. She told me of all things I would see and the experiences I would have and everything else good that college away from home would bring.

Dad was more practical and blunt: “Go have fun, but don’t bring shame on the family. It’s my name, too.”

Tarnishing the family name was unacceptable to Dad, and to be fair, it kept me out of a lot of stupid situations. To this day, whenever I imagine doing something that might not be all that bright, I can see the headline in my mind: “UWO professor arrested on suspicion of (fill in the stupidity here).” I imagine the folks “back home” seeing my dad in the grocery store or running into him at the local farmer’s market and saying, “Hey… I read about your kid…” I STILL do this and I’m middle-aged, to put it kindly.

However, I also think about mistakes that tarnish that other “family” I referred to in the post about how journalists aren’t the enemy. In his 2016 piece on Janet Cooke, Mike Sager talks about how her fabrications led to the general mistrust of various groups of people. Some of his sources said that Cooke led others to distrust African-Americans in the newsroom. Others said it tarnished all journalism, leaving the public to regard all content with a wary eye.

I wonder what Cooke’s professors at the University of Toledo felt when they saw her quick rise and even quicker fall. I remember a few years back when a journalist in Alaska, Charlo Greene, quit her job during a live broadcast while outing herself as the owner of a marijuana-related enterprise.

A number of professors were chatting about this online when a professor I knew messaged me to say she had been a student of his. In discussing Greene’s collegiate experiences and the current situation, I could almost feel his grimace over the internet. If it were my student, I know I would have been rubbing my head and searching for aspirin while muttering, “Oh, good grief…”

Maybe it’s an old-fashioned notion that has people like me avoiding disaster by asking, “Good LORD! What would the NEIGHBORS think?” but I really believe it goes deeper than that. Each of us owes a debt of some kind to the people who helped us get here. The people who support us. Who take part in our lives. Those folks are family in the best possible sense and to create shame through poor judgment is to spread that shame upon them as well.

I might not always be thinking of myself when I do something good or bad, but you better believe I’m doing my best to not bring shame on those people.

Former UW La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow loses his tenured professor position after UW Board of Regents decides porn is icky

I know this shouldn’t be my primary concern, but a) is it accurate to call him “chancellor” in the headline and b) is porn-making chancellor properly hyphenated as a compound modifier. If I had to guess, I’d say a = no, but b = yes.

ED NOTE: As was the case when we covered this in December, I apologize in advance for any double entendres. It is almost impossible to write this without hearing a 12-year-old boy in my head laughing, despite my best efforts to avoid such concerns.

Also, Monday, we’ll have a Q and A with one of the First Amendment attorneys at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the organization that has helped Joe Gow get legal representation.

THE LEAD: Joe Gow, the former University of Wisconsin La Crosse chancellor who was removed from his position after his bosses realized he was making porn videos in his spare time, was fired from his tenure position at the university as well on Friday.

The regents voted unanimously to terminate Gow. Deliberations were made in a closed session away from the public for about half an hour.

In December, university officials discovered Gow had produced and starred in pornographic content across the web in videos and self-authored books he published under a pseudonym. He was fired as chancellor and recommended to be stripped of his tenure.

Besides his future with UW, Gow has also lost $300,000 in accrued medical benefits. Before his June hearing, Gow said he was planning on using the benefits for more than a decade of coverage into his retirement.

 

THE BACKGROUND: We covered this situation here back when Gow lost his role as chancellor when the porn first came to light back in December.

Long story short, the regents removed him after they found out he was making porn. Gow stated he never used university materials, services or anything related to his job as he and his wife made the adult videos. That said, the role of chancellor was basically “You serve at the pleasure of the regents,” so he got yanked.

Still, like most administrators, he had what are called “retreat rights,” which meant he had the right to go back and teach in the department to which his expertise is tied. Thus, the regents had to figure out how to rid themselves of Gow and the baggage his hobby carried without breaking the law or violating his rights as an employed, tenured professor.

 

NEXT STEPS: Gow is out of a job but he is strongly considering legal action against the university. Gow noted he thinks this could go to the Supreme Court, as previous cases involving unpopular but totally legal speech have in the past few decades.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE:  The university and the UW system have been stacking sandbags on this one to try to find anything they can fire him for, other than what they are actually firing him for.

There have been accusations of refusing to cooperate with an investigation into his activities, perhaps violating the UW technology policies, engaging in “unethical and potentially illegal conduct” and engaging in activities that would harm his ability to be an effective teacher.

What they really want to say is “This makes us all uncomfortable. Joe did icky stuff, so he needs to go away.”

The problem with what they want to say is that it violates the First Amendment. I always go back to the simplest explanation I have for the First Amendment: It’s not meant to protect expression people like. It’s meant to protect expression people DON’T like.

I’ve also spent more than a little time thinking about the question, “How much of my soul does the university have the right to own?” I mean, sure, there’s the time in class and the time with the kids outside of class and the time in my office and the time publishing and the … Eh… You get the idea.

However, what happens when the university decides that whatever expression I want to engage in or someone else on faculty wants to engage it is considered too uncomfortable for words?

I’m quite certain my friends in the LGBTQ+ community who are of a certain age and worked at public universities found themselves a bit wary of what their private lives would mean for their public jobs. If we kept along that more conservative line of thinking, what would it take for a university to find that two people of the sexual orientation being together as a couple made for a firing offense today?

Conversely, I also know that opinions on certain things tend to change over time, so what seems OK at the moment, might lead to concerns in the future. For a while, there was this massive trend of everyone getting Chinese symbols tattooed on themselves as a form of expression and few people thought twice about it. (One of my students at the time, however, did say that his father, who was fluent in the language, would not write out such symbols for people as it was a cultural concern.)

Today, cultural appropriation is a concern and rightly so, could there be a risk to a professor at a public institution who has these permanent markings in a visible place if enough people make noise about it? I don’t know, but I like living in a world where the First Amendment says, “You can be upset, but you can’t punish someone for expression that is offensive.”

The phrases “objective journalism” and “sexting relationship with a source” rarely co-exist

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but when you Google a person’s name and EVERYTHING comes back related to one story, it’s rarely going to be a good day for that person.

THE LEAD: It’s stories like this that give me a brain aneurysm:

New York magazine on Thursday said its Washington correspondent, Olivia Nuzzi, is on leave after learning the star journalist had allegedly engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a reporting subject. That person is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to people familiar with the matter.

“Recently our Washington Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi acknowledged to the magazine’s editors that she had engaged in a personal relationship with a former subject relevant to the 2024 campaign while she was reporting on the campaign, a violation of the magazine’s standards around conflicts of interest and disclosures,” a spokesperson for New York magazine said in a statement in response to questions from Status.

A BASIC LOOK: Nuzzi met Kennedy in person once, according to published reports, as she worked on a profile that ran in November 2023. Kennedy is married to actress Cheryl Hines while Nuzzi was engaged to Politico chief Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza, but the two recently called off the engagement.

A variety of news outlets chipped in bits and bites of this story, but they all generally agree on the fact this wasn’t a physical affair. It included some tawdry banter, full-on sexting and/or Nuzzi sending nude photos to Kennedy. Word of the nudes and texts got back to the bosses at New York Magazine, and Nuzzi eventually confirmed the gist of the situation.

She is currently on leave from the magazine as a result of this situation.

POST-TRAUMATIC JOURNALISM FLASHBACK: I’m not naming names, as the last thing I want to do is dredge up the past or be accused of internet shaming. However, this isn’t the first case of a reporter and a source ending up in a compromising position of this nature. If you don’t believe me, just Google “Reporter source romantic affair” and you’ll find more than a few of these situations have made the news outside of the RFK Jr./Nuzzi situation.

The one that comes back to my mind happened in Milwaukee when a reporter for a local publication wrote a profile about a high-ranking law-enforcement official while simultaneously slipping into a relationship with the person.

This situation was a full-on affair of a physical nature that was eventually nudged into the public eye by other local journalists. I remember the editor of the reporter’s publication standing up for that person in public, only to back off later after finding out things were much more involved than the editor thought at the time.

As this whole thing went into full Dumpster-fire mode, I just kept thinking, “This is not going to look good on a resume…”

THINGS I DON”T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT: You can feel however you want to feel about certain elements of these kind of situations, or this one in particular. As a journalism professor and journalist, here are the things that I don’t give a damn about that are getting reported with breathless pearl-clutching in the press:

  • The age difference: She’s 31, he’s 70. Yes, he’s technically old enough to be her grandfather and no, I don’t want to think about that, either. However, from a journalistic ethics perspective, I couldn’t give a damn. (I seem to recall the Milwaukee situation being a case in which one of the people involved was about twice the age of the other person. Still don’t care.) Whether they were born within nanoseconds of each other, or if they have an age gap that makes the one between J. Howard Marshall and Anna Nicole Smith look tiny by comparison does not make this ethically better or worse. As long as they were both above the age of consent, it’s not an issue. As long as they were source and reporter, that’s the issue.
  • Relationship status: He is married and she was engaged. Personally, I wouldn’t be all that thrilled to find out that Amy was trotting around on me. Also, I know If were doing something like this, I’d come home to find her with a meat cleaver and a shovel, sitting calmly in her chair as she practiced her alibi. However personally sketchy or morally repugnant you might or might not find the concept of breaking the bonds of commitment, it’s neither here nor there for me when it comes to the ethics of this situation.
  • The “level” of the affair: Maybe I missed it somewhere in the SPJ Code of Ethics, or I just haven’t come across one at a yard sale yet, but I don’t think journalists have some sort of “conversion chart” for what is an “acceptable affair” with a source. (“If they only got to second base, and they’re not the subject of a profile….”) There’s a pretty clear line that anyone with a brain has in regard to the difference between being friendly with a source (“So, how are your kids doing in soccer this year?”) and crossing that line into an affair (“So, are your kids still at soccer? Can I come over?”) I know that everyone has their version of that line, but I’m guessing the phrase “sent nudes” would garner general agreement that a line got crossed.

SO WHAT DOES MATTER IN THIS CASE?: For me, it’s a pretty short list, but here we go…

Reporters shouldn’t engage in sexual (or sexually adjacent) conduct with sources: As we’ve reported here, it’s a well-debunked trope that all women in journalists trade sex with sources for information. That doesn’t mean that a) cases in which reporters of all genders having sexually inappropriate relationships with sources of all genders don’t exist and b) it’s wrong, no matter who started it, when it started, how it started, where it started, why it started or what level of sex stuff is involved.

This breaks the ethical code journalists ascribe to in a clear and basic way, as the SPJ code clearly states:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

No, it doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not have a naughty-time tussle with a source,” but it’s still pretty clear.

Look, I get that journalism is a particularly weird field in which we get really close to a lot of people, and that we’re all damaged in a lot of ways that don’t really lend themselves to finding normal human relationships on the regular. I also know that it’s nearly impossible to spend any time in journalism without running a risk of a conflict of interest.

I had two: In the first case, I became engaged to a city council rep after a relatively brief period of dating. I wasn’t covering the city council, but I still disclosed it to the editor and got it out there. (Oddly enough, I told him on a Friday night and on Monday, I was sent to cover the city council for the first time in my career. When I protested, reminding him of the situation, he told me he had no one else available and, “Just don’t quote her.”) That relationship ended a short time after that situation, so it didn’t become an issue again.

The second was when Amy and I were married and in Missouri. I was the crime editor and she had gotten a job as a police dispatcher at the university police department. We both disclosed and it was fine, in that dispatchers rarely ended up speaking to the media, and I wasn’t about to lean on her for information about anything at MUPD.

That said, there were more than a few nights when she’d come home and want to unburden herself about a ridiculously terrible day, only to stop and say, “Wait, you’re not a journalist now. You’re my husband… Spousal privilege applies.” I didn’t break the faith, but, man… that was tough some days.

The point is: It’s not like this is some uncharted territory or arcane rule we’ve never heard of. That said, “knowing” and “knowing better” are apparently two different things, and “caution” should remain a watch word when we feel the line between source and friend (or more) start to blur.