Was this really news on July 1, 2014? Did we not know this one, simple thing before?
Granted, there are anti-vaccination people out there who rely on junk science and exaggerated anecdotes to form their opinions about the safety of vaccines. But, and this is important, they are the minority and they are — and let me be frank — fringe-case nutjobs.
By allowing the pretense that vaccines are unsafe — because otherwise why would we need a news story to say that they are safe — KBZK is pushing out the worst sort of click-bait junk journalism that is aimed to appeal to the controversy and not to the facts.
What worse, when they posted the story to Facebook, the TV station prefaced it with this inane question:
I won’t go into the reasons vaccines are safe; scientists have done that or me over and over again. More evidence of their safety are the decades upon decades of vaccines being used to reduce the number of deaths from diseases. Someone I know also like to point out that if you need more evidence of the hazards of life without vaccinations, visit a cemetery and look for baby and child graves from a certain time period. Then remember that you can vaccinate against polio.
For some reason in this country, people now distrust scientists. I think that comes in part because the Internet makes it so easy to publish nonscientific points of view to a large audience and make them look credible. Plus, the sins of some untrustworthy scientists have given opponents of science, who usually have a financial stake in the opinion they’re supporting or a total ignorance of how the scientific process works (or both), ammunition to bluster that all scientists are corrupt, money-grubbing quacks.
On top of that, in the pursuit of “balance,” journalism often forgets that a story isn’t balanced that gives equal time to nutcases who are demonstrably, scientifically wrong. By making it seem as if the anti-vaccination stance is as valid as the real science and then prompting people to discuss whether the “risks” of vaccination are worth it, KBZK is perpetuating dangerous misinformation.
The ticket, as opposed to the affidavit, contains information such as the man’s exact date of birth, his driver’s license number and his home address.
The full Twitter exchange is in the Storify embedded below (and linked here).
I can understand the differences in choices about publishing information online. The Chronicle chooses not to publish the ticket because these people are merely accused of crimes and because the ticket contains such personally identifying information. Haake made clear that the Missoulian publishes the ticket because “it’s public record.” That’s a fair difference of journalistic opinion. If a little harsh. (Do they publish documents in rape cases too? Because those documents are also public.)
What stood out from the conversation most to me was Haake’s response to Whitney’s initial question:
@wabermes It's public record. What reason do we have to protect him after he so carelessly endangered people's lives?
In it, editor Darrell Ehrlick explains why the paper chose not to run a copy of state Sen. Jason Priest’s affidavit online when he was accused of assault. He said, apart from the case involving children, that the documents, “if true, paint a picture that is deeply troubling.”
More importantly, I believe the court documents could paint Priest in a harsh light. And, just as much as I am a fervent supporter of the First Amendment, I am also a big believer in the due process that says it’s up to the courts to decide Priest’s innocence or guilt.
This is a discussion we have had concerning mugshots here at the BDC a while back. We decided that the en masse publishing of photographs of people only accused of crimes was not something we wanted to do because those photos can imply guilt. You’ll of course note that we do publish photos of people in court when we write stories about their cases, though. Clearly, there is disagreement among Montana papers over handling mugshots too.
It seems there was an earthquake in Yellowstone over the weekend, the biggest in three decades, in fact. And as it came along with a swarm of other earthquakes, people (and the media) naturally assumed a connection to the supervolcano.
I’m not sure whether Maxwell is right about the lack of this news from the Chronicle being a sign of the newspaper apocalypse. But still, other news organizations got it out over the weekend while we didn’t — even the Magpie managed to “cover” it by linking to an AP story in the Flathead Beacon in its aggregator.
(In fact, considering that the story has been on the Associated Press for some time, I was surprised to find that it hadn’t moved onto our site yesterday. I’m going to look into why that didn’t happen.)
In reality, it was a minor quake in a sparsely populated area that barely shook anything in West or Gardiner, and there were no reports of damage or injuries. Objectively, it really wasn’t all that newsworthy, my inner defense mechanism says.
And while that all may true, determining newsworthiness isn’t a 100-percent objective process. The quake was a story people would have read — had we carried it and shared it widely. It is, therefore, something we should have had sooner.
There’s no way around the lack of a Monday paper, not unless the company’s profits suddenly soar and stay up consistently. And with no Monday edition to put out, there is of course little justification to staff the newsroom fully on Sundays, which means that we’ll be weak on that day. It’s a fact of modern newspaper life — not necessarily a fact of the newspaper apocalypse.
Yet even a skeletal staff should have been paying close enough attention to hear about the Yellowstone quake. Even if they didn’t feel it shake, they should have felt it newsworthy.
A couple days ago, a man named Panson De Oaks wrote to us on Facebook, linking to a video from the TV station WGN in Chicago. The video was a segment on vacation destinations — mostly high-end, expensive ones. Included was a vacation destination in Montana, Paws Up, a “glamping” destination in the Missoula area. When the guest on the video announces the destination is Montana, one of the anchors sort of goes “Ugh.”
It’s clearly a city-folk reaction to activities such as camping, rock climbing and horseback riding, but De Oaks felt that it was a frontal assault on Montana’s reputation. A screenshot of his initial post on the BDC page is below.
Before I responded to him, I clicked on the link to his Facebook profile, which was mostly private. However, on his “About” tab, one of the websites listed for him is: http://www.pawsup.com. A Google search for his name turns up a more specific connection. De Oaks is the managing director of The Resort at Paws Up, at least according to his LinkedIn profile.
When I noted to him via Facebook that we wouldn’t be getting involved in his company’s dispute with WGN over coverage of his resort, he called it an “attack by a news organization against the state of MT.”
So a businessman felt snubbed because of an anchorwoman’s mild distaste for non-urban outdoor activities. I informed him we’d not be getting involved and left it at that.
No, in an example of unsourced, un-bylined, click-bait journalism at its finest, KTVM posted a skeletal story about the “incident” with the non-news headline “Chicago anchor doesn’t appear to be a fan of MT” and replete with a big Montana state flag image and “UGH” in all-caps with an exclamation point. There is no mention of the clear source of the story, De Oaks, who posted the same news tip to KTVM’s Facebook page as he did to our page. He seems to have gotten a more more receptive response:
There were some fun new developments in this case of click-baiting this morning. NBC Montana Today posted this message to its Facebook page:
Yep, that’s NBC Montana’s morning show bragging about trying to bait anchor Robin Baumgarten into responding to the non-story the station had already run.
Here are the relevant tweets embedded, starting with Painter’s post at 5:41 this morning:
@WGNRobin Ran story about your audible "UGH" from Monday interview segment about camping in MT. I'll take you boating on #FlatheadLake!
I suppose I could take this as a journalism lesson. If my story isn’t generating enough buzz, try contacting the sources you didn’t contact before you wrote the story and then ask them to react publicly to the story you already wrote about them. For bonus points, make sure to involve yourself personally somehow, like by inviting said source to an activity you already know they’ll reject.
The Chronicle’s Assistant Managing Editor Ted Sullivan tweeted his amusement and frustration at NBC Montana’s Lauren Maschmedt for her falling prey to that TV news stable: B-roll that shows the reporter herself doing something mundane.
It snowballed a bit from there.
TV reporters: don't show footage of you looking through court docs. As a view, I don't want to see you do the most mundane part of your job.
Bullying might be too strong a word, but there is definite mockery there. It’s certainly not fun to be the brunt of a Twitter conversation questioning the job that you’ve done — especially when one of the people joining in is a fellow TV newser.
And, admittedly, some of the non-Maschmedt tweets are a bit cavalier and maybe unprofessional. I’ll chalk that attitude up to a passion to see the job of journalism done well, no matter who is doing it.
Yet the criticism of NBC Montana’s story is deserved.
The story in question is about the FBI filing charges against Bozeman escapee Kevin A. Briggs. Maschmedt’s voiceover carries us through all the facts, but the video accompanying it shows us close-ups of the federal documents too close up for us to really read anything in them, shots of Maschmedt sitting at a table in a darkened room reading those documents, a close-up of her hand taking notes on a legal pad, on her eyes scanning the lines of text.
Shots of a reporter “digging deeper” into documents have no place in a news story. They aren’t telling the public anything important. Instead, those valuable airtime seconds are marketing the reporter and the news station.
“See? See? Look how much work we are doing to inform you, viewers. The work is so important, watch some of it being reenacted while my voiceover tells you what I found.”
I do see. I see you doing your job, plain and simple. But the work of journalism isn’t news; the results are news. And those results are what we need to be giving viewers and readers, not self-aggrandizing B-roll.
A parallel is to be found in a recent post from journalism professor and blogger Jeff Jarvis, who is somewhere in the middle of a series on rethinking TV news. Jarvis’ post targets the stand-up (where a reporter simply stands in front of the camera at some location and says things into the camera).
The stand-up has zero journalistic value. It wastes time. It wastes precious reportorial resource. It turns the world into a mere backdrop for entertainment. It’s a fake.
The B-roll shots of the reporter walking in to a public building or flipping through file drawers are just as big wastes of time.
Sometimes we get stuck in the form of news and forget that the first mission is to deliver the facts. TV reporters have to fill airtime, and they are taught to fill it with something other than them just sitting there reading the news. It’s a convention — just like the one that we face at the newspaper when we have to have one story with “main art” on the section front pages — even if that means covering less-than-impactful feature stories.
But to keep our work relevant, we have to remember that conventions are not set in stone, and that if there’s a better way to tell people the news efficiently, we should take advantage of it. Our audiences will appreciate it.
And snarky journalists won’t make fun of you for it.
Cops and courts reporter Whitney Bermes pointed out this interesting disappearing-story mystery today.
Whitney received a phone call today from VOICE Center Director Alanna Sherstad and Assistant Managing Editor Ted Sullivan got one from Bozeman police Chief Ron Price. Both callers wanted to talk about a story detailing the affidavit for Kevin A. Briggs.
Briggs is the man police say walked out the front door of the Law & Justice Center in Bozeman while wearing shackles and handcuffs. He was initially arrested in connection with a reported rape and knife assault.
NBC, said Sherstad and Price, had aired a story on its 10 p.m. newscast in which the station identified the woman by her initials. Both wanted to speak about why they thought that was a bad idea and make a case for why the Chronicle shouldn’t.
It was an argument they didn’t have to make. The Chronicle has a policy of not identifying confirmed or alleged victims of sexual assault. We even went back and removed a few details from our initial report this morning that, in retrospect, could have been too harmful for the woman in this case.
Here’s where the mystery comes in. NBC aired the story, but the video for it can be found nowhere on its site. Searching for “Briggs” on the KTVM site brings up a video story titled “Court documents lay out events leading up to Briggs arrest,” but the video that plays has to do solely with University of Montana students’ reactions to the possibility Briggs was in their town. It’s clearly not the correct story.
A tweet from NBC Montana still points to the story:
This is me hypothesizing about the missing story: I believe KTVM realized that it had gone too far with its report and “disappeared” the story from its website.
I see this as a serious matter, ethically.
While it was probably the right decision to trim back the details in its report to minimize harm (an SPJ Code of Ethics pillar) KTVM was wrong to make the story disappear.
NBC should have corrected its story online, noting what was changed in the article (as we do at the Chronicle). And it should have aired a correction on its next broadcast. Deleting the mistake and trying to forget it existed is not good ethical practice.
Of course, neither is letting an outside party influence your coverage, like letting a couple phone calls guilt you in to deleting something. Again, I don’t know that’s what happened in this case, but it seems possible considering the phone calls Whitney and Ted received this morning. (Acting independently is another SPJ ethics pillar.)
Come to think of it, I have never seen a TV station in our area issue a correction. This concerns me because no newsroom gets it right 100 percent of the time. (I could always be wrong. If you’ve seen one, feel free to let me know in the comments.)
The post comes from Cody Butler, a reporter at our local ABC/Fox affiliate, and it aroused an inordinate amount of interest in the newsroom yesterday afternoon.
Exactly what does it mean to be “undercover” on a school bus? Was he in disguise? What grade level was he pretending to be? What cartoon character was on his backpack?
So members of the news staff stayed to watch the 5:30 news. When the story didn’t appear before the weather, we knew our hopes were sunk. The story must have been so good it was held for sweeps.
As it turned out, that wasn’t far off because no one who noticed the initial tweet seemed to notice that the shortened link pointed to Facebook, where the full text of the post made it clear that the story will air in February – during sweeps.
Still, by logic, we are left with several tantalizing possibilities:
Butler was actually undercover on the bus, which would mean that an adult television reporter was pretending to be a minor around real minors who would not have been informed an adult was in their midst.
He was pretending to be a bus driver, which would mean he was driving a bus, which requires special training and license provisions a reporter isn’t likely to have.
He was pretending to be some other adult who would be on a school bus?
Butler doesn’t know what “undercover” means.
A post to Butler’s Facebook page gives us a possible hint about his “undercover” investigation. The photo shows one of the folding, flashing stop signs on the driver’s side of a school bus. Does this mean his story is about how many people obey the law regarding stopped school buses?
The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
It seems like a small matter – a reporter seeming not to know what “undercover” means or exaggerating his tease of a sweeps story. But undercover reporters and schools have, ironically, been in the news lately, and it hasn’t been a good thing.
According to a write-up at Poynter, a television station in St. Louis on Thursday night reported about a school lockdown – that one of its reporters caused.
The station, KSDK, was doing a report on school security that involved sending a reporter with a hidden camera into a school to see how far they could get before being stopped by security. The reporter’s actions prompted a 40-minute lockdown at Kirkwood High School, during which students huddled in darkened classrooms and one teacher gave a student “a pair of scissors to use as a weapon.”
Lindsay Toler at the Riverfront Times wrote that KSDK made the situation even worse. The reporter, who did leave his name and phone number at the office after roaming the school for a while, asked where the bathroom was and then turned the wrong way, arousing a clerk’s suspicion.
For the next hour, Kirkwood school officials tried to prevent a lockdown by asking the station one simple yes-or-no question: Was the man in the office a reporter on assignment? But KSDK refused to explain.
First, officials called the number left by the reporter, but he never answered. The outgoing message identified him as a KSDK reporter, so the school resource officer brought in Ginger Cayce, the school’s communications director, to demand answers from the station. Cayce says she called KSDK over and over to halt panic by confirming the news team’s stunt.
I know the St. Louis incident is a bit more extreme that Butler’s bus ride, but it’s worth keeping in mind before we absently throw around words like “undercover.”
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
Frankly, I’m disappointed in myself this morning. At our newsroom meeting today, two of our reporters made some solid points about a story we ran on the front page of the paper — points we as editors should have brought up before the story ran.
The story is about an effort by a woman in Gallatin County named Averil Heath, who has signed on with a group calling itself the National Liberty Alliance. Heath and the NLA want to establish so-called “common law grand juries” in every county and state in the Union.
We placed this story on the front page, but I don’t think we did enough homework on the NLA before publishing it. So I’m going to share some of my findings here on the blog.
What is a grand jury?
A grand jury is a jury of citizens called together to decide if there is enough evidence to bring forward a criminal charge. The document they return is called an indictment.
Traditionally, the body has been seen as a protection for citizens against unwarranted charges by the government.
The proceedings are secret. No judge is present, and the whole affair is led by the prosecutor. Defendants have no rights to present their cases and don’t even need to be informed about the hearing at all.
Because the grand jury is not a court, some rules that apply in court do not apply. For example:
Some evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendments can be presented.
A person does not have the right to have an attorney present but can leave the room at any time to consult with an attorney.
The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to federal felony charges. Some states do use grand juries, but there is no right to a grand jury hearing.
Critics have argued over the years that grand juries, rather than being a buffer between the government and the people, have become a rubber stamp for prosecution.
When the consent of the governed is bypassed, it is the usurpation of democracy. We cannot afford to be passive in the face of this assault. Some of our citizens from Bozeman have put their bodies on the line to challenge this tyranny.
Heath also provided a public comment to the Montana DNRC regarding a decision to allow Signal Peak Energy to expand coal mining operations. Heath’s comment read:
Leasing coal mining rights for below market value] is an outrageous policy that is a slap in the face of all Montana citizens. Please stand up and show some backbone. Defend taxpayer-owned land in Montana from this sort of theft. I consider this a theft from all Montana citizens!
National Liberty Alliance
So far as I can discern from IRS and GuideStar searches, the National Liberty Alliance is not a registered nonprofit, despite its use of the .org domain for its website and its plea for donations.
The group reports on its website that it is 11 percent of the way toward an $8,000 goal to get a matching grant. There is no indication of where that grant will come from, and I can find no record of who might be funding the group.
Donors are asked to make their checks payable to “Trade Winds” at 3979 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, NY. According to Google maps and street view, this is an empty lot. But we may not be able to trust that photo.
An internet search for Trade Winds in Hyde Park found a franchise location for printing company Minuteman Press, 4246 Albany Post Road in Hyde Park. This address appears to be a commercial strip mall according to Google.
Minuteman Press started in 1975, according to New York Secretary of State’s records. It’s CEO is listed as Robert Titus, and it’s address is listed at 61 Executive Blvd., Farmingdale, NY. A Robert Titus of Huntington, N.Y., is listed with the FEC as having contributed $500 to Barack Obama’s campaign in June 2012.
Apart from the coincidence in location, Minuteman and Titus do not appear to be connected to NLA.
The domain nationallibertyalliance.org was registered by a John Darash on April 20, 2013. The phone number listed appears to be a cellphone number in Hyde Park. Darash’s address on the domain registry is listed as 600 Violet Ave. in Hyde Park.
According to county records, that’s a 1.4-acre lot owned by a Carole A. Wexler. From aerial photos and Google street view, it appears to be a kind of strip mall.
The domain nationallibertyalliance.com, which redirects to the .org version, was registered a day earlier.
The group’s website proclaims that “Only the people can save America! Will you?” That’s beneath a Latin motto “Lex naturalis dei gratia” – translated: “the natural grace” – and a quote from Psalms about justice and righteousness.
The site also points out that simply registering for the site means “you are registering to become a juror.” There are no uninvolved members, it seems.
The site uses quotations from the Magna Carta, William Pitt, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and the Bible to make its case – which boils down mostly to the idea that there are tyrants out there impinging people’s rights.
Specifically, the NLA cites a Supreme Court decision in which Justice Antonin Scalia “confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor the legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people.”
U.S. vs. Williams
The 1992 case involved John Williams, who was accused of misrepresenting his character on financial statements. The prosecutor, though, didn’t present the grand jury evidence showing that Williams was always truthful with his financial information, so Williams sought to overturn the indictment. The justices ruled 6–3 that it’s up to the defendant to present his own evidence.
Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists, and that the disclosure rule applied here exceeded the Tenth Circuit’s authority.
Basically, Scalia is saying that, because the grand jury is separate from the courts, courts have been reluctant to make rules regarding what sorts of things go on in grand juries.
He acknowledges that the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights and not the body of the Constitution and that it has not been “textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles.”
In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.
Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length.
The grand jury’s ability to investigate criminal wrongdoing – or even the suspicion of criminal wrongdoing – is evidences its functional independence from the judicial branch, Scalia writes.
“The Constitution is a common-law document, as is the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta,” said Darash, who lives in New York. “What is our heritage as Americans? It’s our inalienable rights, and that brings you right back to common law. It’s what our founding fathers died for.”
The NLA appears to be a group with heavy right-wing, tea party leanings. It’s success at convening these illegal common law grand juries has been nil.
So far, as reported by NLA’s own website, no common law grand juries have been convened in the country, and that’s probably good, because according to established law, they’d have no authority or legitimacy.
Occasionally, my significant other wonders about moving to another city in Montana. There are a number of reasons why she wonders this, but suffice to say my answer is always the same: I’d better buck up on my coding skills because I won’t be getting a newspaper job in those towns.
Well I might, but I sure wouldn’t feel safe in that job, considering that Billings, Missoula, Helena and Butte all have papers run by Lee Enterprises. And I’m sorry, I don’t feel like walking in to a layoff situation.
What brings this to mind today? A little article that the morning Romenesko report turned me on to an analysis from Seeking Alpha, an investment news site. The article paints a stark picture of Lee’s stock:
We believe that Lee Enterprises (LEE) has been burning its furniture to stay alive by aggressively cutting costs in order to service its crushing debt load.
The analysis notes that Lee has cut its staff by 26 percent since the start of 2010 and cut its newsprint production by 30 percent over the same period. The article concludes:
LEE’s short-minded strategy of gutting its workforce (and therefore its product) while simultaneously increasing prices is doomed to fail.
The whole article has plenty of stock talk that is, frankly, over my head, but the message is clear, and it’s also clear that I don’t want to work for a company that’s struggling this much.
Edit: A commenter noted that I forgot the link to the Seeking Alpha article. I have since added it in the text above.