When “true-ish” is good enough (A Throwback Post)

One of the things I can’t shake out of my head is the way “Apple Cider Vinegar” pitched itself to the viewers: A true-ish story based on a lie. The latter part (the lie) makes sense in that Belle Gibson claimed to have cancer (or cancers, technically) and yet she never did.

The “true-ish” part? Yeah, that’s where it’s a bit rough for a journalism nerd like me.

I was the guy in the theater on the opening night of “Miracle” loudly cussing every time the producers took liberties with one of my favorite stories of all time. (For the record, the Russians did NOT illegally knock Jim Craig on his ass before scoring the third goal of the game, nor did they need to do so. It was a clean breakaway by Maltsev that beat Craig low on the stick side, dammit.)

I also find myself repeatedly Googling things during “based on a true story” movies to figure out if someone actually died the way the film said or if certain characters actually existed. (I’m still pissed that there wasn’t a Jamie O’Hara who played at Notre Dame in the 1970s.)

That said, I know it’s kind of the way in which things work in Hollywood, which brings me back to today’s Throwback Post that explains why accuracy isn’t always crucial to these docu-dramas.

—–

 

Based on a true story = We made up some stuff

Amazon spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $14 million during the Super Bowl for a minute-long teaser trailer of “Air,” a movie that tells the story of how Nike came to land Michael Jordan as a client. The Ben Affleck/Matt Damon flick follows a familiar trend these days, as it is “inspired by true events,” which is just a fancy way of saying, “We made up a bunch of stuff.”

Movies like “Elvis,” “Blonde,” and “I Wanna Dance With Somebody” have seen varying levels of post-hoc fact checking that call into question certain parts of the films, with film buffs rebuffing these concerns as mere “dramatization of controversial and contested historical events.” Still, these situations are small potatoes when compared to how some films and limited series have taken liberties with reality.

“Winning Time,” HBO’s look at the late 1970s/early 1980s rise of the L.A. Lakers, created massive amounts of controversy with the way in which it played fast and loose with the truth. Given the relatively recent era in which the events took place, the degree to which sports information is retained and a quality text from which to draw, it seemed almost purposeful that the series got so many things factually wrong, including places, dates, opponents and scores. This isn’t even accounting for how the athletes, including Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar , publicly denounced the way in which they were portrayed.

Even more, Jerry West and his legal team have demanded an apology and retraction for the way in which the series portrayed the Laker legend, noting that the producers engaged in “legal malice.”

The New York Times did a deep dive on the cottage industry that has streaming services building mini-series around actual events, but then jazzing up reality to make life seem cooler than it was. The piece cites West’s portrayal as a “rage-aholic” as one of the more egregious cases of taking liberties with reality. It also points out that Linda Fairstein, the prosecutor in the “Central Park Five” case, is currently engaged in a lawsuit against HBO for its portrayal of her in the series “When They See Us.”

The defamation attorneys the Times quoted made it clear that these cases aren’t always easy to win, because the First Amendment does provide folks with the ability to create fiction based on true people. However, there are limits to this kind of thing:

Sometimes disclaimers are enough to protect a studio from legal liability, especially if they are prominently displayed in the opening credits and offer detail of what has been fictionalized — beyond a generic acknowledgment such as “based on real events,” legal experts say. The First Amendment offers broad protections for expressive works like film and television productions that depict real people by their real names.

But if someone can convincingly claim that he or she was harmed by what screenwriters made up, that is grounds for a strong defamation suit, said Jean-Paul Jassy, a lawyer who works on media and First Amendment cases in Los Angeles.

“A disclaimer is not a silver bullet,” he said.

This is in some ways akin to the way courts have afforded opinion pieces and reviews protection under the fair comment privilege. This allows writers to provide “pure opinion” that cannot be proven true or false without fear of falling afoul of defamation laws. That said, merely stating something is opinion isn’t a silver bullet either.

If you say, “In my opinion, Vince Filak is a lousy professor,” it falls into that opinion realm. It’s stated as such and there’s no way to define “lousy” so that a court could determine if I fit that definition or not. Plus, in defamation suits, the plaintiff (in this case, me) would have to show harm: Did I get fired? Did my classes shrink to the point I had to teach Medieval Basketweaving to maintain the course load in my contract? Did a group of random professors follow me around and mock me to the point I needed therapy? Probably not, so I’m not going anywhere with this.

However, if you say, “In my opinion, Vince Filak stabbed a student in the face with a fork during his 8 a.m. Writing for the Media Class on Feb. 20,” now you’re in trouble. It’s not an opinion, for starters, as we can prove it either happened or didn’t happen. It’s accusing me of a crime, which furthers my case. Plus, if that thing gains steam, I’m likely to get fired.

Writers, editors, producers and directors have always taken SOME liberties with reality when it comes to how they portray real people in fictional or semi-fictional stories. What makes this recent set of efforts more concerning is the degree to which they are bending the truth and the ways in which the fictionalization has the ability to warp public perception of real people in some harmful ways.

As for me, I’m looking forward to “Air” for the bad 1980s clothing and the Affleck/Damon banter that most of their collaborations pull off quite well. I’m also looking to see if anything gets dinged on a fact check, especially because, as anyone with any experience with Michael Jordan will tell you, he’ll take it personally

 

A Look at “Apple Cider Vinegar” and How the Media Ecosystem Works

Earlier this month, Netflix dropped its most recent “tru-ish crime drama” mini-series, “Apple Cider Vinegar.” The series follows the rise and fall of wellness “guru” Belle Gibson, whose claims that she survived a terminal brain tumor (and other similar health crises) through the use of a wellness diet.

Here’s the trailer, which gives you a pretty solid look at what you’ll get over the six-episode saga:

The trailer and the series both seem to emphasize this odd game of “one-on-one” between Belle and Milla, the latter of which is not a real person. Experts digging into the series have offered theories about who Milla might be based on and to what degree Belle knew her, but it’s not as “Hatfields and McCoys” as we see in some clips and episodes.

We could spend about 8,000 words doing a “what’s true and what’s not” about this whole situation, but that wouldn’t really get us much in the way of value. What is interesting is to see how we got to a six-part mini-series about this health influencer and how it’s part of a pattern in media.

I’ve made the case in multiple classes that whether you’re in print, broadcast, film, social media, public relations, advertising or any other part of media that I missed, you’re not in a silo, but part of larger media ecosystem. In some cases, this is easy to see and it’s pretty linear: A PR practitioner puts out a press release on X topic, which mainstream media practitioners receive and use to craft a story. That story then gets shared on social media, where other media participants add information, provide commentary, offer other facets of coverage and so forth. Based on how loud that gets, the mainstream media, the original PR firm or other PR agencies can choose to respond, augment or ignore what’s going on.

In the case of Belle Gibson, we start with the easiest media on-ramp available: Social media. She began posting on various websites in the early 2010s and then developed a following through her “Healthy Belle” Instagram account. As she gained followers and attention, she developed the app “The Whole Pantry” in 2013, which had recipes related to the lifestyle she said had helped her beat her brain tumor. The success of the app led a Penguin Books subsidiary to publish a print edition cookbook of the same name and concept in 2014.

As she continued to get more and more attention, she had both supporters and detractors on social media. Her fans saw her as providing an alternative to the “cut, burn and poison” approach to cancer, while others had a hard time believing she could stop Stage 4 brain cancer with a smoothie.

Around this time, another part of the media ecosystem kicked in, as investigative reporters at The Age received information from one of Gibson’s former friends in 2015 that undercut her claims of raising money for charity and her recovery from cancer. Beau Donelly and Nick Toscano began digging into Gibson’s past and her claims to find that significant doubts existed among people who knew Gibson that she ever had cancer. They also reported that she didn’t donate money she raised for charity to said charity and that fans were beginning to turn on her.

As social media was continuing to shift the tide, Gibson fessed up in 2015 to The Weekly, explaining she never had cancer. “60 Minutes Australia” did a giant episode on Gibson in 2015, which included a confronting interview:

At this time, both print/online and broadcast media were digging into Gibson even more. Penguin pulled her book, her social media empire began to collapse and other publications found themselves in hot water over previous coverage of Gibson. Cosmopolitan had given Gibson a “Fearless Female” award while Elle Australia had reported her “miracle” story without fact-checking her cancer claims.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this, Gibson hired a PR firm to try to fix the situation. The folks there dropped her as the situation got out of hand.

In 2016, Consumer Affairs Victoria attempted to fine Gibson for violations of Australian Consumer Law. Reports indicate that she disappeared from public view, but as of 2020, she had not paid the fine.

While the mainstream media was keeping track of Gibson’s legal issues, Toscano and Donelly had turned their reporting into a longer-form read with the 2017 book, “The Woman Who Fooled the World.” They were also appearing on podcasts, media talk shows and more to discuss the situation.

Eventually, the story morphed into the “true-ish story based on a lie” that Netflix has put together, titled “Apple Cider Vinegar.” As the series launched, mainstream media stories about Gibson’s whereabouts have emerged, and, again, influencers and podcasters are taking another look at the story. (In addition, Netflix is posting the 2023 documentary, “The Search for Instagram’s Worst Con Artist,” next week. This piece covers the Gibson situation from a less “tru-ish” and more “true” angle.)

In looking back on this, we can see how this story continued to grow, morph and spread at least seven media forms (social, app, book, newspaper/website, broadcast, streaming, public relations)  to say nothing of the tangential elements I likely missed. Obviously, not every story gets the full Netflix treatment or has Tara Brown ripping someone to shreds. However, it does demonstrate the ways in which the media ecosystem feeds upon an event, a situation, a story or a concept over time and across platforms.

EXERCISE TIME: Take a look at pretty much anything else a big-name streaming service is doing as a docu-series/docu-drama and see how many other tentacles of media you can find touching that story at any point. Try to isolate where the story really started and then piece together a timeline as best you can that provides a look at which media entered the fray where and contributed what aspects of information to the story.

Time to Dissect the Super Bowl Ads for Audience-Centricity and Interest Elements

One major tradition surrounding the Super Bowl, other than complaining that whatever it was was the worst half-time show ever, is a deep dive into the commercials. Countless ad orgs, commentators, marketing pros and other folks will spend hours upon hours making bests and worsts lists. In any given year, there will be the ads that tug on heart strings, ads that are flat out ridiculous, ads that insult at least three demographic groups and ads that leave us wondering, “OK, what the heck was that?”

Rather than go the traditional way here, let’s make some sense of the ads from the perspective of how media content is supposed to work.

  1. Define and understand your audience well enough to provide content that caters to the people in it.
  2. Use specific interest elements to pique and hold the audience members’ attention.

Here is a link to a pretty good running tally of all the ads:

 

Go through the ads and find the one that you like (or hate) the most and start to analyze based on the key points above:

Audience: Break down the demographics based on who tends to watch the Super Bowl, according to a reliable source you can find online. Then, see what segment of that broader chunk is most likely the target of this ad from that perspective. Then, move into the psychographic elements that you think are at the core of what the target audience members most likely ascribe to in their lives. In short, what values, feelings, connections and more is the ad you picked trying to tap into.

(As for the third element we outline in the book, it’s highly unlikely the geographic element will play a role here, but if you find something, go for it.)

Then, move into the next phase by assessing the interest elements that draw the attention of audience members:

  • Fame
  • Oddity
  • Conflict
  • Immediacy
  • Impact

As we often note, you won’t be able to catch all five of these in most cases. At least one should be present in any media content. See how many you can find and then assess if those elements are being successfully tapped.

Some of the goals of the ads will work or won’t work because the people making the ads didn’t correctly match elements like “fame” or “impact” with what the target audience knows or understands. (I bring this up, as Amy and I were watching part of the half-time show and when someone came out to sing with Kendrick Lamar, we both asked, “OK, who the heck is that?” We eventually asked our cooler, hipper sister-in-law, who was nice enough not to shame us as part of the process…)

See what you can come up with as part of this analysis, particularly if you thought any given ad really worked or really flopped.

At the very least, it’s a good excuse to watch some videos in class today.

 

A Brief Follow-Up on Fact-Checking A Flaming-Fart Claim

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one who saw the claim that Gorman Thomas once lit a fart and took off one of Alfredo Griffin’s eyebrows in the process:

Clearly, I hit a nerve…

This was the most traffic I got on a single post in one day since the opening of the blog. By 6 a.m. Thursday, I had more visitors than I have on most normal days. A former student hit me up on Facebook to let me know his friends had found it while Googling this topic and that my post was pretty high on the list. So, I took a look on Google and found this:

I’m now famous for all people who Google “Gorman Thomas” and “fart.” Mom would be so proud…

My post was at the very top of a Google search, something I never thought could happen on anything not sponsored. Apparently, I should have pivoted the blog away from journalism years ago and focused primarily on fact-checking retro-claims of the farts produced by athletes…

I guess if there are a couple key points to make about all this, they are:

  • I’m thrilled that so many people took the time to try to fact check the claim about Gorman Thomas, as it gives me hope that maybe we aren’t all digital lemmings. I’d be even more thrilled if folks were digging into things with a little more societal gravitas, but we all have to start somewhere, so let’s be happy for a moment on this one.
  • Oddity still remains a key interest element. Every time I rework the books for subsequent editions, I try to make sure that they’re aging well. When I pitched the FOCII mnemonic for knowing what tends to draw people to information (Fame, Oddity, Conflict, Immediacy and Impact), I could point to specific examples I was seeing to support each element. In each subsequent edition, things in the world kept getting weirder and weirder, so it wasn’t always clear if we had become kind of numb to Oddity. Apparently, we haven’t. Or we all just like the idea of lighting farts.
  • If someone out there knows Gorman Thomas and is reading this, tell the man I’ve got his back.

And tell him I’ve still got the ball he signed for me.

Until next week,

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

Fact-checking a flaming-fart claim: How digital media has made idiots of us all

I spent half of Tuesday night trying to figure out if it was more important to post about potential local stories related to the tariffs on Chinese goods or a deep dive on how social media posts of the past may shape the Oscar race for a trans-best-actress nominee.

Then, the most insane and yet somewhat believable post showed up in my Facebook feed, thus sending me down a ridiculous rabbit hole to prove a point:

Gorman Thomas was the only first-round pick of the Seattle Pilots in 1969. By the time he was ready to make his major-league debut in 1973, the team had relocated to Milwaukee and become the Brewers.

Thomas had a tremendous power swing that had him leading the AL in home runs twice in his career. He also was an all-or-nothing guy, in that he led the league in strikeouts twice as well, finishing his 13-year career with a .225 batting average, 268 homers and 1,339 strikeouts. He also remains among the most beloved of Brewers of all time, mainly because he seemed to typify the Milwaukee way of life.

He once co-owned a bar with fellow 1980s Brewer Pete Vukovich called “Stormin’ and Vuke’s” where he’d belly up to the bar like he was one of the guys on your softball team. He was always happy to sign an autograph or take a photo with a fan. He was more of a shot-and-beer guy, according to the people who knew him, than some sort of high-brow snob. He also abhorred decorum, so I could totally see something ridiculous like this fart thing happening.

I got to meet “Stormin’ Gorman” at a golf outing one year. He is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, but his handshake could crush stone.

The fact check took about 20 minutes, starting with a Google search of terms like “Gorman Thomas” “fart” “fire” “spring training” and “Alfredo Griffin.” Only two or three hits came back in any combination of those terms, and they all somehow either linked to this post or were on social media sites that didn’t reference a source for this story. (I also included the misspelled version of his first name “Gorrman” that the original post reference. It didn’t change anything.)

I then went to Newspapers.com to do a search of similar terms, during that time period and came back with nothing. Sticking with that database, I looked for Brewers news on or around the date of March 20, 1979, which the original social media post listed for this supposed “fart heard ’round the world.” This story poked the first major hole in “fartgate:”

The story notes that both the Wednesday (March 21) and Tuesday (March 20) intrasquad games for the Brewers were rained out, thus making it unlikely that Thomas hit a double in a game that didn’t exist. However, it wasn’t clear from this which team the Brewers might have played, so back to the internet I went, looking for some information on Alfredo Griffin.

It turns out that Griffin was in his first season with the Toronto Blue Jays, so I did a quick search to find out where the Jays held their spring training in 1979. According to the history of the Grapefruit League, the Blue Jays trained in Dunedin, Florida starting in 1977. Based on the dateline from the previous article on the Brewers, Milwaukee took part in the Cactus League, training in Arizona. This would seem to make it improbable that the Brewers played the Blue Jays in spring training.

A quick check of Newspapers.com for the day in question has the Blue Jays playing the St. Louis Cardinals, losing by a 7-2 margin. A box score from that day shows Alfredo Griffin didn’t even play, let alone get set on fire by a flaming fart:

Long story short, this absolutely, positively, never happened on that day or any other day that we can prove. So, what’s the point of this seemingly pointless exercise?

For starters, it’s another example of how digital media is giving us some form of brain damage, in that any idiot with an internet connection can make a specious claim about anything, and thus get hundreds of thousands of people to see/believe it. I honestly felt like sharing this post simply because I saw it and I liked it.

Then, my journalism brain kicked in.

Second, because so many people are pumping ridiculous stories like this into the social media streams of people who don’t have a half-hour to kill before sharing a story like this, we find ourselves having a lot more trouble trying to parse fact from crap.

My kid often brings me a TikTok story about some insane, but possibly true, situation like a cop killing a killer’s kid, a group of people being attacked for wearing the wrong thing or ICE raids on a church. Each time, I find myself digging around to debunk it, in hopes of showing her to become a critical thinker. Each time, I find myself thinking, “I wonder how many people just believed this and were impacted by it without knowing it’s total garbage.”

You could always argue that the Gorman Thomas post is “just a goofy sports story” so it’s not like it’s “really that important.” OK, fine, but what about this post?

As I was writing about Thomas, Amy showed the “End Racism” post to me on her phone and asked, “Did you hear about this?” My answer was that I had heard something about it, but I couldn’t say for sure how much of that post was on the money.

It turns out that, according to two sources quoted in the New York Times, the league had planned to change the “End Racism” to “Choose Love.” The photo with this post is cropped tightly, but a wider shot used in the Times shows the signage on the stands, which clearly indicates this is from last year’s Super Bowl.

As Gronk is fond of saying, we’re now in Super Bowl LIX….

The pairing of the image with the post’s text makes it seem like the league had set up everything already, only to back pedal on this and grab a bucket of paint because Trump was showing up.

The league’s spokesman said the decision for selecting the slogans was an attempt to be uplifting in the wake of the difficult moments the country has endured, from the terrorist attack in New Orleans to the fires in California. He also noted that the league rotates slogans frequently, as the AFC Championship game didn’t have the End Racism call to action, but the NFC Championship game did.

The Times article mentioned that Trump was attending, but the article didn’t state the administration had asked or that the NFL had offered to cut the racism slogan on Trump’s behalf. Other articles on the topic noted that the decision to change the slogan came on the same day as the announcement that the president would attend the game, but didn’t go any further than that.

So, yes, it’s true that this is happening, and yes Trump has spoken out against DEI initiatives, and yes he’s going to the game. But, no, they didn’t paint over something and, no, nobody asked/demanded/whined for this to be done. Beyond that, it’s conjecture, unless I’m missing something because I don’t follow Trump on Truth Social.

The bigger point here is that trying to figure out what to believe and how upset to get about it can be absolutely frickin’ exhausting and most people aren’t going to take the time to do this. They’ll likely believe and share whatever they want and the cycle of “Did you hear about…” will perpetually continue until something really bad happens as a result of one person going one step too far with one ridiculous story that goes viral and ends up causing some real damage.

This is why good journalists and journalism matters. By making sure you’re reporting fact-based content in your own work while also using critical thinking to root out BS stories that are just weird enough to be believable, you can stack some sandbags against the flood of misinformation the public faces every day. No, you can’t solve every problem, but if you can stop someone from spreading misinformation, or help them find ways to debunk dumb internet rumors, you’re making a difference.

AP Peeves: What are the style errors your students (or you) frequently make or that bother you the most?

A colleague who oversees the student newspaper at her college had this question about potential ways to make life easier on her staffers:

Our student newspaper does not have any prerequisite, so I have students who know nothing about AP Style. I’d love to put a poster in our lab of AP highlights.  I found some AP Style highlight posters online, but they’re outdated. Before I create my own (instead of grading…), does anyone have one they use? Something editable to change every so often?

 

The Associated Press style book is the bible (not Bible) for media writers across the board. Despite students’ protestations to the contrary, the AP is not trying to torture them or kill their grades. Rather, the goal is to come up with some standardized conventions on important stylistics so that we best meet the needs of our readers and we’re all using a similar language to do so.

If I’m being honest, it’s almost impossible to have a complete handle on everything in the style book unless you have a photographic memory or are really anal retentive (or is that anal-retentive?) because things keep changing. One year, AP stated it made something like 168 changes, revisions and additions between the previous style book and that year’s model. This isn’t always a bad thing, as the additions can explain important global issues, provide more inclusive language or help clarify difficult concepts.

One of the key things I’ve tried to get across to the students is that most of getting to know the AP book is less about trying to know everything in it and more about trying to know what kinds of things the rules generally try to address. Therefore, I don’t necessarily need to know if I spell out “Avenue” with a full address or not, but I do need to know that there’s a rule on that, so I should open the book and make sure I’m sure about it.

However, when you’re trying to learn everything that’s going in there, it can feel like this:

(Yes,  I know they misspelled bar mitzvah… No, I don’t control the internet…)

For the “Dynamics of Media Writing,” “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing” and “Dynamics of Media Editing” books, we included Fred Vultee’s 5-Minute AP Guide, which did a great job of giving students a quick look at the key rules in short order. That said, I also know that a) not everyone has the books, b) not everyone makes the same mistakes and c) the request was for a poster.

I pitched the good folks at Sage the idea of building a poster based on what you all say you see most often and/or hate the most when it comes to AP style errors.

So here’s the deal: I’m starting with a few basic AP peeves of mine and I’m asking you to add yours. You can add them in the comments below,  send them to me via the Contact page, hit me up on social media or get in touch with me however you otherwise would. As long as I get your peeve, I’ll do my best to add it to the poster.

Here we go:

  • Titles: Formal titles are capitalized only in front of a name, unless the name is part of a subordinate clause:
    • RIGHT: I met Mayor Jane Jones at the grocery store
    • RIGHT: I met the mayor at the grocery store.
    • RIGHT: I met the mayor, Jane Jones, at the grocery store.
  • Numbers: Unless there’s a specific exception, spell out numbers under 10. Anything 10 or higher is a figure. (Don’t worry, I’m adding numbers to this poster like a BOSS…)
  • Time of day: It’s a.m. and p.m. not AM/PM, A.M./P.M. or any other combo.
  • Affect/Effect: My personal demon. I have to look it up every time.

 

Your turn. Go for it!

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

A cussing meteorologist, a porn-star professor and a fan of racy rap: The Suicide Squad sequel of free speech cases (A Throwback Post)

I hadn’t intended to turn the first week back into a First Amendment showcase of sorts, but real life has a way of dictating content, which leads us to today’s installment of “Weird Free Speech Situations Theater.”

In this case, it is a settlement over what constitutes “unprofessional” social media posts for a pharmacy student:

A month after Kimberly Diei enrolled as a doctor of pharmacy student at the University of Tennessee, the college’s professional conduct committee received an anonymous complaint about her posts on social media.

The college reviewed her posts, which included racy rap lyrics and tight dresses, and concluded that they were vulgar and unprofessional. It threatened to expel her.

For the last four years, Ms. Diei has been fighting her school in court, arguing that her posts were fun and sex-positive, and unconnected to her status as a student. Now she has won a settlement: On either Wednesday or Thursday, she expects to receive a check for $250,000 — both vindication and relief, she said.

This situation, as well as the ones involving Joe Gow and Sam Kuffel had me thinking back to previous posts about the support of free speech and how the court cases involving it never are about benign speech. As Zach Greenberg noted in his interview with the blog, nobody tends to throw a fit when someone comes out as “pro-cute puppy photo,” so most free speech situations tend to be about things people find beyond the pale.

Thus, free speech advocates tend to end up with the “worst heroes ever,” to borrow a phrase from “The Suicide Squad” movie trailer. Here’s a look back at the first time we made that argument on the blog.

 

 

A rock star with a heroin problem, the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” guy and a foul-mouthed cheerleader: The Suicide Squad of free speech court cases

A frequent joke told among lawyers is that the best case is the one with a carload of nuns as your client and a busload of priests as your witnesses. In most cases, however, it seems more like this scene from “The Wire.”

When it comes to First Amendment law, it would be great if we had more cases in which polite, articulate young people like Mary Beth Tinker who quietly wore a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War. Her choice led to hate mail and threats, but also a ground-breaking Supreme Court case regarding student free-speech rights. And, looking back on it now, people can understand better her underlying concerns about the war as well as her relatively mild statement against it.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established that students do not shed their Constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. It also provided protections for students who wish to express themselves against intrusion from school overreach.

Unfortunately, an upcoming case in which a high school student did her best “Scarface” dialogue on Snapchat could be the case that undoes a lot of those protections in a digital age:

In 2017, ninth-grader Brandi Levy said on Snapchat some version of what stressed-out students have been saying on the back of the school bus since the invention of buses: “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.”

The post was shared on a Saturday afternoon during a trip to the local convenience store, disappeared from Snapchat by Sunday afternoon, and caused no disturbance at school whatsoever—except to irritate the cheerleading coach, who banned Levy from the squad for a year.

She filed suit, and in June 2020, a federal appeals court ruled that school authorities violated the First Amendment by disciplining her for the off-campus speech. Now, the Mahanoy district is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.

The case doesn’t matter in regard to that single incident anymore. Levy is now a college student, the cheer team has had a complete turnover in terms of membership and nothing the court could do would change what happened in regard to the punishment levied at the time.

However, if the court decides to overturn that appeals court’s ruling, it could mean that schools can now actively monitor social media and punish students for ANYTHING that appears to be “objectionable.” If that doesn’t scare you, you probably had one of the six “really cool” high school principals I was always told existed somewhere.

Me? I dealt with a lot of nuns and balding guys who wore short-sleeve shirts with brown ties. This is terrifying…

This leads to the point of the post: It seems like we NEVER get the perfect Supreme Court case that perfectly showcases speech that deserves to be protected for the betterment of society. It’s never the student newspaper that was censored for reporting that the principal had stolen money or the kid with the bullhorn outside the school telling people not to eat cafeteria food because the workers were being abused.

It’s always something with an F-bomb, a nude pick or a drug reference that we get to stand behind and say, “Hey, look… You CAN’T censor this because… well… geez…”

We don’t get Superman, Batman, Aquaman or Wonder Woman as our defenders of freedom.

We get The Suicide Squad:

In other words, we get a “mental defective dressed as a court jester,” a “guy who wears a toilet seat on his head” and a “shark with hands,” to quote the red-band trailer I’m not allowed to show you here…

If you think I’m kidding about this, consider the following court cases on important topics:

The landmark case for online speech and defamation? Rocker/Actress/Woman I’d be most scared of meeting in a dark alley Courtney Love won and survived an appeal of her “twibel” case (Twitter plus libel) in 2014. Love, whose outlandish behavior and heroin abuse have long been the subject of media coverage, stated that an attorney had been “bought off” instead of helping Love recoup parts of her late husband’s estate.

A crucial Supreme Court case regarding speech at school sponsored events? Morse v. Frederick, also known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. A student held up a sign at an event proclaiming the cryptic message. When the sign was taken away by school administrators, the student later sued claiming his First-Amendment rights had been violated. The SCOTUS ruled that schools have the right to remove pro-drug messages, even though students have some free speech rights at school.

The case that dealt directly with a reporter’s right to maintain confidential sources? Branzburg v. Hayes, which dealt with reporters being forced to disclose the names of sources who were manufacturing hashish.

And, of course, the case involving satire and hyperbole in regard to public figures comes from the apparent patron saint of this blog, pornographer Larry Flynt.

Now, the question of whether students can get smacked around for writing things on their own time on their own social media that school officials dislike comes down to one foul-mouthed 14-year-old cheerleader.

The problem with all of these cases is that it becomes so much easier to suppress speech that is unpopular, vulgar or otherwise disagreeable.

If the reporters in Branzburg were protecting whistleblowers who had uncovered some sort of dark plot by a foreign government to go all “Red Dawn” on the U.S., it would likely feel better to the courts to support their interests in remaining anonymous.

If the school was trying to suppress speech about the superintendent stealing money from the district to buy weed, maybe a “No Bong Hits 4 Superintendent Smith” sign would have garnered a different outcome.

If Sally Fields had tweeted about potential legal malfeasance (while wearing her “Flying Nun” costume), it might not have felt like the entire future of online free speech hinged on whether the defendant was going to lose her mind on the stand and start throwing things at the jury.

If the cheerleader had done her rant without the f-bomb, maybe the courts would be more inclined to side with her at every level.

However, we don’t get to choose the cases that decide our fate, which is why it’s important to make sure that we stand up for all speech because what one person thinks is a felony charge, others might consider a misdemeanor at best. In the mean time, keep an eye on this one, as it’s got a lot more at stake than a lot of people think.

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.

Time to freshen up your book shelves: Updates on “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing,” “Exploring Mass Communication,” and “Dynamics of Media Writing” textbooks

Fresh off the press, I got my stack of the third edition of “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing.” Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine I’d be lucky enough to get this far.

(NOTE: I’m still on break for a bit, but I needed to break the seal on the blog because a) some of you are already back at the classroom grind and b) I promised Sage I’d let people know what’s up with the textbooks I’m doing. I’ll probably pick up again after a week or so, or whenever the pinball machine I’m working on really ticks me off… — VFF)

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS NECESSARY: I got home last night to find a heavy box on the porch from Sage. Inside were my author copies of the third edition of “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing,” which pressed over the holiday break.

I wanted to take a moment to thank all of you out there for, as Yogi Berra once put it, making this edition necessary. Somewhere along the way, you all made a choice to give me and this book a chance, and for that, I’ll be forever grateful. I know it’s not easy changing books for a class, adopting a new textbook or assigning any textbook in today’s “Textbooks are the overpriced devil, man…” world.

My goal in every textbook is to practice what I preach: Focus on audience-centricity. I want you and your students to get a ton out of these books and I want to make sure I never lose sight of who is out there and what you want/need out of me.

(The second goal is to adhere to my Polish-Catholic roots of feeding you as much as humanly possible. Whether it’s pierogi or information, we’re going to stuff you to the gills. Thus, the book updates and the blog: If you need ANYTHING I didn’t cover, tell me and it’s going up on the blog.)

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT THIS EDITION: Well, for starters, the cover is wicked cool… OK, maybe I’m the only one who cares about that. Let’s look into this a bit:

  • Artificial intelligence: This is the 800-pound gorilla in the room these days when it comes to anything having to do with content creation. Chapter 2 has been completely revamped to deal with how best to think about AI, what it’s good for in terms of media and why we aren’t ready to let RoboCop 2 take the keyboards out of our hands. In addition, more on AI and critically thinking about it are infused in the remainder of the chapters. We do more than a broad overview, instead focusing on how the tools can benefit you in the field and what you need to watch out for.
  • Audience Centricity: Not only has Chapter 1 gotten a refresh, but the rest of the book has gotten some additional elements that will help you figure out how best to use media tools to reach your audience, whatever that audience may be. Now, more than ever, we see shifts in what social media platforms can do, how news outlets provide content and who pays attention to our work. To make sure we’re all doing the best we can, we need to know who we’re trying to serve, what they want from us and how they prefer to receive it. Chapter 1 gives you the goods on the first part of that sentence, while the remaining chapters focus on the latter two parts.
  • Thoughts from a Pro: We have some of our tried-and-true pros back to offer their thoughts on what you need to know and why you need it, as well as some fresh faces with some new ideas. In addition, each pro gives us a few thoughts they have on AI as it relates to their work and the field as a whole. That should be helpful in demonstrating how significant (or maybe insignificant) AI is in various parts of the field, along with suggestions from professionals as to how best to use it.
  • Legal Wranglings: The law has been changing quite a bit (and apparently will continue to change in the upcoming few years), so keeping media operations on the right side of the law continues to be an ongoing challenge. With fresh examples and updates to legal outcomes, we give you a look at where things tend to stand in regard to reporting and writing as of this publication. (And I’m sure by the time I’m done writing this post, TikTok will be dead, brought back, challenged again and killed again like Jason Voorhees, so that’s why we have the blog…)
  • More goodies: As always, Sage is a treasure trove of add-ons and extra stuff for every book I do. The folks there have tons of lecture stuff, PowerPoints, test banks, exercises and more at the ready beyond what I’ve put into the book and the blog.

If you are interested in getting access to the new edition (digital, print or otherwise), along with all the extra stuff Sage has added, feel free to hit me up through the contact page or go directly to Staci Wittek at: staci.wittek@sagepub.com

She is truly the best person I’ve ever worked with in terms of sales and marketing and generally being awesome at book stuff.

But wait, there’s more…

TIME TO GET (MEDIA) LIT(ERATE): Back in August, “Exploring Mass Communication” hit the market, once again proving I either have too much time on my hands or I’m too stupid to say no to a project. In any case, this intro-level textbook turned into what I would like to say is the best book I’ve done to date.

I get the best mail from Sage…

This book is GREAT for any introduction to mass media/mass com class, but it’s even BETTER if you’re trying to teach media literacy to a nation of freshmen and sophomores. I didn’t realize that until someone told me, “Hey, why did you tell me you wrote a media-literacy text?” Turns out, it’s become popular in all sorts of classes for a number of reasons:

  • It’s cheaper than the other leading brand:  In going through 128 reviews Sage sent me, I realized that the only thing all 128 reviewers agreed on was that price was a factor. I asked Sage if I could just write whatever I wanted if we re-titled the book: “Filak’s Five Dollar Book of Mass Com Stuff.” The answer was a hard “no,” but we did get the print edition to come in below other books like it. Even BETTER, the rental costs for digital copies are less than one-third of the cost of the print edition (especially if you go through Sage reps) and then there’s an even BETTER version of this….
  • The Vantage Advantage: “Nobody reads textbooks,” is what I keep hearing from instructors, who are actually desperate to get students to read the stuff in the book. Sage has built an entire digital system called Vantage that can plug into your Learning Management System (BlackBoard, Canvas, D2L or whatever people are calling it) so you can assign kids stuff digitally, track their efforts and generally oversee the class like the guy in “Sliver.” In addition, you can toggle how you want to spot-check the kids on their reading. There are quiz questions attached to various sections of the readings and other analytics that help you help them to learn. Even better? It’s cheaper than a print book. By a lot.
  • The “Crazy Vinnie Guarantee” is Still in Effect: If you missed it when the book launched, here’s a look back at the insane things I’ll do  to help you either make the book work for you or to get you set up to use someone else’s book. Seriously. I’ll make someone else’s book better if you want.

If you’re interested in giving this book a look, feel free to hit me up through the contact page or go directly to Staci Wittek at: staci.wittek@sagepub.com

And one last item…

MEDIA WRITING UPDATE: Just before my former editor Terri left Sage, she told me that if my books worked out as well as she knew they would, I’d be writing a book a year for her for the rest of my life. If she’s as prescient about everything as she was in making that statement, I’d like to follow her around at an off-track-betting parlor some day…

This leads us to the upcoming edition of “Dynamics of Media Writing.” The “OG” book in the “Dynamics” series is in process as we speak. The goal is to have it to a copy editor by February, proofs done by April and out the door by August of this year. As is the case with the Reporting book, there will be AI additions, new pros and a ton of extra stuff. I’ll keep you posted as we go.

Thanks again for all of this. Without you all, these books would be dead after one edition and serving as a coffee coaster in the grad-student lounge.

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

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)