It's no secret that print journalism has faced immense challenges in the past 20 years or so.
The popularity of the Internet has grown immensely during that time. Newspapers have provided articles and photos free of charge to anyone with a computer and a web browser. Cell phones evolved from having a reputation for being the exclusive property of doctors and drug dealers to being as ubiquitous as a wallet or a purse, if not more so. The phones themselves evolved from being enormous and clunky, usable for just a few minutes of emergency communication to being portable combinations of telephone, computer and other electronic devices.
Newspapers realized all too late that providing all, or an overwhelming majority, of their content for free from the early days of the Internet's popularity was a bad decision. On March 5, 2007, the website NewspaperDeathWatch.com was founded, "chronicling the decline of newspapers and the rebirth of journalism," according to its banner. Along the left side of the front page is a list of newspapers that shuttered their doors.
Magazines certainly aren't immune to the pressures that have turned some newspapers into shadows of their former selves. A particularly unfortunate example of this happened Thursday when Sports Illustrated laid off its last six staff photographers.
"There was a decision made through the company to restructure various departments, including at Sports Illustrated," said the magazine's director of photography Brad Smith. "Unfortunately economic circumstances are such that it has cut the six staff photographers."
The photographers could still shoot photos for the magazine in a freelance capacity and the layoffs will take effect in March, meaning the six laid off photogs will still work Super Bowl XLIX in Glendale, Ariz. However, Smith's words arguing that the magazine remains committed to high quality photography ring especially hollow.
"Our commitment to photography is as strong as ever, and we will continue to create the best original content possible," he said.
Riiiight.
A small community newspaper, be it a weekly newspaper or a monthly rag may not be able to afford a staff photographer on salary and may rely on photographers who shoot as a hobby or may have retired from full time work and don't need money earned from taking photos for a newspaper to put food on the table. Even larger newspapers have seen reporters be required to take pictures while writing stories.
I know first hand that entrusting photos to someone who isn't a photographer by trade is a crap shoot at best. When I was managing editor of The Prince George's Sentinel, I was extremely lucky to have a staff photographer who put extensive thought into shot composition and getting the right mood for a photo going with a story. I was also lucky to have freelance writers along the way who took good photos. I even managed to take some photos that impressed our very talented staff photographer.
However, I also saw publications where the quality of photos taken by reporters or others who worked for the newspaper suffered enormously.
One of my friends showed me a tweet he encountered that said the following: "Sports Illustrated laid off all its photographers so the swimsuit issue will just be selfies."
The news of Sports Illustrated's layoffs of its staff photographers hits especially hard because I still have vivid memories of coming home from school as a high school student on Thursdays and grabbing Sports Illustrated as soon as I walked in the door. Before I even touched my homework, and sometimes even instead of doing my homework for the night, I read Sports Illustrated. Back then, I was a budding writer and an avid sports fan. I used to read Sports Illustrated and I used to be captivated by the quality of the writing. I even remember dreaming that one day, my words would grace the pages of Sports Illustrated.
Years later, I made that childhood dream come true in a sense. In 2010, I was a sometime writer for Yahoo! Voices, and they contacted me about writing a piece in which I profiled the sporting venues and teams in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. When I got the e-mail on May 26, 2010 that it was published on Sports Illustrated's online site, I was insanely happy. Even my parents -- who hate sports and don't follow sports -- realized what a big deal it was to be published by Sports Illustrated.
That's why seeing the magazine's decline in quality from being appointment reading every Thursday to being just another publication ditching an example of what it did best in the effort to save the almighty dollar is especially heartbreaking. I certainly feel for the six men who now will no longer earn a salary for their photos. Certainly, having to find another job in an economy that still carries reminders of the Great Recession is tough. But their loss is more than just one publication looking to save money. It's a symbol of the plight of far too many people who struggled to make ends meet in living their passion who end up having to find other ways to keep a roof over their heads.
If that doesn't demonstrate how far a publication that once was the gold standard for journalism has fallen, I don't know what does.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
After watching Selma, the march is just beginning
Selma, a movie depicting some of the events leading to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, is not considered a history of the civil rights movement. Nor is it a biopic of the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The movie strives for none of that. And yet, a movie that so narrowly focuses on the events of the various marches on Selma, Ala. was about much more than that.
The recent tensions related to the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown last August in Ferguson, Mo. plus other race-related tragedies placed race relations squarely in the forefront of American discourse. Certainly, the events depicted in Selma portrayed a shameful period of American history.
Robert Jones, Jr., writer from Brooklyn, N.Y. wrote a treatise aimed at Selma director Ana DuVernay. His open letter to DuVernay begins with imagery of black children and adults facing modern day atrocities that brought to mind the outrages that our forefathers in the fight for equality faced in simply winning the right to vote.
That battle for the right to vote was central to Selma, and brings the voter turnout of the past election into negative relief, as so many people died for the right to do something the law said they should be able to all along.
As depicted in the movie, Alabama Gov. George Wallace pointed out in a conversation with President Lyndon B. Johnson that blacks had the legal right to vote. However, poll taxes they could not afford and other demands made it all but impossible for any more than a minute number of blacks to vote.
Considering all that, is there really an excuse for voter turnout in the 2014 election to be at its lowest point since World War II?
I digress. The point behind Selma may not have been to be a history of the civil rights movement as a whole. It may not have been to depict Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life. It may not even have been specifically to demonstrate how much has changed in 50 years ... and how little has changed in that span.
So what was the point of Selma? All of the above, and much more. Performances by David Oyelowo, who portrayed King, Tom Wilkinson as Johnson and Nigel Thatch, who portrayed Malcolm X and bore an uncanny resemblance to the civil rights activist, and others in the cast showed many of the difficulties behind the scenes in planning marches, in interpersonal relationships and in the big picture fight for equality, including the differences between the various branches of the movement that threatened to tear it apart.
Selma may not have been the perfect movie -- there are disputes about the accuracy of the movie's depiction of the King-Johnson relationship and an actor in the movie said he wished it depicted "just how demented" Wallace was -- but as a power reminder of how far we've come in the fight for equal rights, and how far we haven't come, Selma certainly was worth sitting over two hours to watch.
The movie strives for none of that. And yet, a movie that so narrowly focuses on the events of the various marches on Selma, Ala. was about much more than that.
The recent tensions related to the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown last August in Ferguson, Mo. plus other race-related tragedies placed race relations squarely in the forefront of American discourse. Certainly, the events depicted in Selma portrayed a shameful period of American history.
Robert Jones, Jr., writer from Brooklyn, N.Y. wrote a treatise aimed at Selma director Ana DuVernay. His open letter to DuVernay begins with imagery of black children and adults facing modern day atrocities that brought to mind the outrages that our forefathers in the fight for equality faced in simply winning the right to vote.
That battle for the right to vote was central to Selma, and brings the voter turnout of the past election into negative relief, as so many people died for the right to do something the law said they should be able to all along.
As depicted in the movie, Alabama Gov. George Wallace pointed out in a conversation with President Lyndon B. Johnson that blacks had the legal right to vote. However, poll taxes they could not afford and other demands made it all but impossible for any more than a minute number of blacks to vote.
Considering all that, is there really an excuse for voter turnout in the 2014 election to be at its lowest point since World War II?
I digress. The point behind Selma may not have been to be a history of the civil rights movement as a whole. It may not have been to depict Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life. It may not even have been specifically to demonstrate how much has changed in 50 years ... and how little has changed in that span.
So what was the point of Selma? All of the above, and much more. Performances by David Oyelowo, who portrayed King, Tom Wilkinson as Johnson and Nigel Thatch, who portrayed Malcolm X and bore an uncanny resemblance to the civil rights activist, and others in the cast showed many of the difficulties behind the scenes in planning marches, in interpersonal relationships and in the big picture fight for equality, including the differences between the various branches of the movement that threatened to tear it apart.
Selma may not have been the perfect movie -- there are disputes about the accuracy of the movie's depiction of the King-Johnson relationship and an actor in the movie said he wished it depicted "just how demented" Wallace was -- but as a power reminder of how far we've come in the fight for equal rights, and how far we haven't come, Selma certainly was worth sitting over two hours to watch.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Zimmerman arrested again, bringing more justice problems to light
George Zimmerman, the man found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the wake of the shooting death of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012, was arrested Friday on suspicion of aggravated assault and domestic violence with a weapon.
Zimmerman, 31, was arrested at about 10 p.m. in Lake Mary, Fla. and was booked on those charges at the John E. Polk Correctional Facility.
This episode is merely the latest in Zimmerman's checkered history with the law ever since his trial and the events leading up to it gained national attention. He was pulled over in Texas on July 31, 2013, just two weeks after his acquittal in the Martin case. A few months later, he was suspected of getting into an altercation with his then-girlfriend in November 2013. He was arrested on domestic violence battery, aggravated assault, and criminal mischief charges, which he denied. He posted $9,000 bail and his then-girlfriend opted not to press charges.
On top of those charges, a man said in September that Zimmerman threatened to kill him during a road rage incident.
Clearly, Zimmerman's track record is a spotty one. Even if he weren't guilty of any of the charges against him, the fact that he's been in police crosshairs so frequently ever since he first shot Martin casts an even longer shadow of doubt over the verdict. Let's be clear. Zimmerman has been charged with crimes, but has not been convicted. With that said, each incident that causes his name to appear in national headlines casts the verdict in even worse relief.
This particular incident in and of itself may or may not be directly related to recent tragedies that have increased racial tensions to their highest level in 22 years, but justice and race relations do not operate in a vacuum. Not only that, but questions about the neighborhood watch coordinator who continually runs afoul of the law don't paint a rosy picture for Lake Mary.
Recent events have made it clear that a major overhaul is needed in the justice system and in how those who are sworn to protect our communities operate. However, laws alone won't bring the change that's needed. Citizen panels who advise the police but don't have teeth in being able to keep them in line won't get the job done.
Both those who oppose police brutality and those who say they support the police make valid points, but when New York City police officers turn their backs on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio in obvious mutiny and an Indiana officer prints T-shirts with the sloan "Breathe Easy, Don't Break The Law" in an obvious slam on those who wore T-shirts with the slogan "I can't breathe," it only aggravates the us vs. them atmosphere that exists between police and citizens.
It's going to take the community and police working together to ensure that people don't live in fear of police and the police can do their jobs without fear that a 12-year-old will wield a pellet gun, as Tamir Rice did on Dec. 5 when he was shot dead. It's also going to take a much more careful evaluation of other things such as racial profiling.
The justice system was put in place with safeguards that are meant to protect the innocent. When those safeguards result in juries getting it wrong, the problems make the system look worse than it is, regardless of whether Zimmerman is not guilty of these latest charges.
Friday, January 09, 2015
When a joke is no laughing matter
Jokes in newsrooms are often freeflowing and are frequently profane. They’re often riotously funny for the people involved in what is a stressful job.
That is, they’re funny until the jokes get into print.
That’s a lesson The News-Enterprise in Hardin County, Kentucky found out the hard way.
During the publication of Thursday’s edition, two copy editors decided to make a joke out of a quote from Sheriff John Ward about why people go into law enforcement.
In a paraphrased statement, the newspaper reported that Ward said they do so “because they have a desire to shoot minorities.”
As editor Ben Sheroan wrote in an editorial recounting the critical blunder, “Sheriff Ward is not responsible for the statement. He said nothing of the sort.”
The result of the major error is that two copy editors now find themselves out of a job, a reporter finds herself with major egg on her face through no fault of her own and, as Sheroan wrote, the newspaper blew years of trust up in a cloud of smoke.
Sheroan wrote that many angry callers demanded to know if anyone proofreads the newspaper before it goes into print.
Unfortunately, as he wrote, “that’s where the error took place.
“A function and process designed to rid the news pages of error instead added a terrible one that altered the reporter’s original sentence,” he wrote.
To his credit, he also didn’t try to offer a justification for what happened.
“No reasonable excuse can exist.”
Adding in a joke that makes it into print and embarrasses a newspaper is bad enough. Years ago, a copy editor put in a placeholder caption for a person he or she was trying to identify and wrote, “some [expletive].” Unfortunately for everyone involved, that expletive referring to the performer of an act of sexual intercourse made it into print.
Another embarrassing mistake happened when The Bucks Local News, a newspaper based in Pennsylvania, printed an insult of Philadelphia Phillies outfielder Domonic Brown referring to the unusual spelling of his first name.
“*NFP: DOMONIC IS SPELLED RIGHT, HE'S JUST AN IDIOT*”
“NFP” stands for Not for Publication. It was apparently intended for copy editors to not try to spell Domonic in a more traditional manner. Instead, it resulted in a major embarrassment, which resulted in writer Matthew Friedman writing, “the only idiot in this case is me.”
Perhaps in Friedman’s case it was. But these cases point to a critical flaw when it comes to journalism, in particular print media. Story after story of newspapers cutting jobs and some newspapers closing their doors have been rampant over the years. So, too, were directives from newspaper management to “do more with less.”
There’s a huge flaw in that directive. Too often, staffs have been cut to the bone, and in some cases, into the bone, leaving overworked reporters and editors, some of whom end up taking on added responsibilities that they aren’t trained in or aren’t good at.
Some newspapers require their reporters to take photos instead of having a photographer. Some reporters can take photos well. Some can’t. Either way, a reporter having to take photos will see the quality of his or her work suffer in the process.
If a newspaper or a chain of papers takes away a copy editor from a large copy desk, it may have a minimal impact. But if it’s several copy editors who go, it makes it much harder for the people who are left to catch mistakes or write captions or headlines facing mounting deadline pressure.
None of that excuses the horrible mistake on Thursday that resulted in an embarrassing error that looks even worse considering the state of race relations in this country. It shows an appalling lack of sense on the part of the copy editors involved to even make the joke, let alone to allow the joke to make it into print.
The impact to the newspaper itself is a clear loss of credibility, major embarrassment for the reporter involved for that mistake to appear in a story with her byline on it, and a community that is now up in arms. In an age of heightened racial tensions, the impact could have been much, much worse.
That is, they’re funny until the jokes get into print.
That’s a lesson The News-Enterprise in Hardin County, Kentucky found out the hard way.
During the publication of Thursday’s edition, two copy editors decided to make a joke out of a quote from Sheriff John Ward about why people go into law enforcement.
In a paraphrased statement, the newspaper reported that Ward said they do so “because they have a desire to shoot minorities.”
As editor Ben Sheroan wrote in an editorial recounting the critical blunder, “Sheriff Ward is not responsible for the statement. He said nothing of the sort.”
The result of the major error is that two copy editors now find themselves out of a job, a reporter finds herself with major egg on her face through no fault of her own and, as Sheroan wrote, the newspaper blew years of trust up in a cloud of smoke.
Sheroan wrote that many angry callers demanded to know if anyone proofreads the newspaper before it goes into print.
Unfortunately, as he wrote, “that’s where the error took place.
“A function and process designed to rid the news pages of error instead added a terrible one that altered the reporter’s original sentence,” he wrote.
To his credit, he also didn’t try to offer a justification for what happened.
“No reasonable excuse can exist.”
Adding in a joke that makes it into print and embarrasses a newspaper is bad enough. Years ago, a copy editor put in a placeholder caption for a person he or she was trying to identify and wrote, “some [expletive].” Unfortunately for everyone involved, that expletive referring to the performer of an act of sexual intercourse made it into print.
Another embarrassing mistake happened when The Bucks Local News, a newspaper based in Pennsylvania, printed an insult of Philadelphia Phillies outfielder Domonic Brown referring to the unusual spelling of his first name.
“*NFP: DOMONIC IS SPELLED RIGHT, HE'S JUST AN IDIOT*”
“NFP” stands for Not for Publication. It was apparently intended for copy editors to not try to spell Domonic in a more traditional manner. Instead, it resulted in a major embarrassment, which resulted in writer Matthew Friedman writing, “the only idiot in this case is me.”
Perhaps in Friedman’s case it was. But these cases point to a critical flaw when it comes to journalism, in particular print media. Story after story of newspapers cutting jobs and some newspapers closing their doors have been rampant over the years. So, too, were directives from newspaper management to “do more with less.”
There’s a huge flaw in that directive. Too often, staffs have been cut to the bone, and in some cases, into the bone, leaving overworked reporters and editors, some of whom end up taking on added responsibilities that they aren’t trained in or aren’t good at.
Some newspapers require their reporters to take photos instead of having a photographer. Some reporters can take photos well. Some can’t. Either way, a reporter having to take photos will see the quality of his or her work suffer in the process.
If a newspaper or a chain of papers takes away a copy editor from a large copy desk, it may have a minimal impact. But if it’s several copy editors who go, it makes it much harder for the people who are left to catch mistakes or write captions or headlines facing mounting deadline pressure.
None of that excuses the horrible mistake on Thursday that resulted in an embarrassing error that looks even worse considering the state of race relations in this country. It shows an appalling lack of sense on the part of the copy editors involved to even make the joke, let alone to allow the joke to make it into print.
The impact to the newspaper itself is a clear loss of credibility, major embarrassment for the reporter involved for that mistake to appear in a story with her byline on it, and a community that is now up in arms. In an age of heightened racial tensions, the impact could have been much, much worse.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Councilman's "apology" was hardly one at all
Frederick County (Md.) Councilman Kirby Delauter backtracked on Wednesday from his threat to sue The Frederick News-Post for using his name without his permission.
Sounds good, right? Someone admitting when he’s wrong, which seems all too rare in this day and age, and doing so soon after committing the epic gaffe that turned him from locally known at best into a First Amendment villain sounds admirable.
Not so fast.
Delauter’s screed in response to the outcry he caused by threatening to sue reporter Bethany Rodgers was no apology. Hell, it wasn’t even a non-apology apology, which I’ve written about in the past.
“Of course, as I am an elected official, The Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county -- that comes with the job,” Delauter said in a statement.
“So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.”
Not afraid to admit when he’s wrong, perhaps. But nowhere in the statement do I see the words “I’m sorry.” There’s an acknowledgement of letting his temper get the best of him, and an admission that it sometimes escalates rather than calms tense situations.
But there isn’t the most important, most basic element of an apology. The words “I’m sorry.” Hell, even “I apologize” would have been more welcome than their absence. Saying you made a mistake but then not pledging to take concrete steps to ensure that mistake doesn’t happen again is only doing part of the job.
Perhaps acknowledging the First Amendment was a good step in the right direction for Delauter, but with this statement not truly being apology, just merely a backtrack, it reads as more like a snarky response to the sudden dragging of his name through a much larger swath of mud than Frederick County, Maryland. Instead, Delauter’s statement was reminiscent of former congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten’s non-apology in the wake of her criticism of first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama.
If there is one good thing to come from this episode, it’s the prospect that media -- both traditional and otherwise -- still can hold elected officials and those who work for them accountable. That’s something that journalists around the world need to continue doing to prevent the next Kirby Delauter from picking a fight with the media and the people he represents.
Sounds good, right? Someone admitting when he’s wrong, which seems all too rare in this day and age, and doing so soon after committing the epic gaffe that turned him from locally known at best into a First Amendment villain sounds admirable.
Not so fast.
Delauter’s screed in response to the outcry he caused by threatening to sue reporter Bethany Rodgers was no apology. Hell, it wasn’t even a non-apology apology, which I’ve written about in the past.
“Of course, as I am an elected official, The Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county -- that comes with the job,” Delauter said in a statement.
“So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.”
Not afraid to admit when he’s wrong, perhaps. But nowhere in the statement do I see the words “I’m sorry.” There’s an acknowledgement of letting his temper get the best of him, and an admission that it sometimes escalates rather than calms tense situations.
But there isn’t the most important, most basic element of an apology. The words “I’m sorry.” Hell, even “I apologize” would have been more welcome than their absence. Saying you made a mistake but then not pledging to take concrete steps to ensure that mistake doesn’t happen again is only doing part of the job.
Perhaps acknowledging the First Amendment was a good step in the right direction for Delauter, but with this statement not truly being apology, just merely a backtrack, it reads as more like a snarky response to the sudden dragging of his name through a much larger swath of mud than Frederick County, Maryland. Instead, Delauter’s statement was reminiscent of former congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten’s non-apology in the wake of her criticism of first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama.
If there is one good thing to come from this episode, it’s the prospect that media -- both traditional and otherwise -- still can hold elected officials and those who work for them accountable. That’s something that journalists around the world need to continue doing to prevent the next Kirby Delauter from picking a fight with the media and the people he represents.
An act of terror strikes France
Two armed gunmen stormed the Paris office building of a satirical newspaper and killed 12 people in a brutal attack early Wednesday morning.
The gunmen allegedly shouted "we have avenged the prophet!" during their assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, as they symbolically took aim at a newspaper that has been accused of "mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims" by a Financial Times columnist.
Obviously, they did more than kill 12 people, including the top editor and lead cartoonist. This cowardly act is an affront against the principle of freedom of expression. Even though the attack seemingly happened a world away, it is an attack against all journalists, especially ones who turn a critical eye toward religious figures.
Unfortunately, this sort of attack is far too common. Not just the act of shooting people dead itself, but the act of seeking retribution for insults against the Prophet Muhammad, be they real or perceived.
One of the few pieces I wrote in years past on this blog that remains in place is a piece I wrote when an Islamic group took offense to cartoons published by a Danish newspaper back in 2006. As much as I try to be respectful of other people and other cultures, I can't wrap my brain around being so thin-skinned as to take offense to any insults to any religious figure. That sort of hypersensitivity is far worse than any sense of "political correctness running amok." It's far more dangerous than any so-called "pussyfication" of society.
Lives are at stake. People have lost their lives due to jihad over insults. Even if Charlie Hebdo were "baiting" French Muslims, it's a satirical newspaper, possibly akin to the French version of The Onion.
Rather than take offense to any real or perceived insults to any religious faith, a far more productive response to cartoons or criticism of the faith would be defending the faith by making counter arguments in support of the faith. Might doesn't always make right.
My heart breaks for the families and friends of the victims, the 12 people who lost their lives and the five others who were critically injured. We must all take this as a call to action to ensure that people of conscience can feel free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
The gunmen allegedly shouted "we have avenged the prophet!" during their assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, as they symbolically took aim at a newspaper that has been accused of "mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims" by a Financial Times columnist.
Obviously, they did more than kill 12 people, including the top editor and lead cartoonist. This cowardly act is an affront against the principle of freedom of expression. Even though the attack seemingly happened a world away, it is an attack against all journalists, especially ones who turn a critical eye toward religious figures.
Unfortunately, this sort of attack is far too common. Not just the act of shooting people dead itself, but the act of seeking retribution for insults against the Prophet Muhammad, be they real or perceived.
One of the few pieces I wrote in years past on this blog that remains in place is a piece I wrote when an Islamic group took offense to cartoons published by a Danish newspaper back in 2006. As much as I try to be respectful of other people and other cultures, I can't wrap my brain around being so thin-skinned as to take offense to any insults to any religious figure. That sort of hypersensitivity is far worse than any sense of "political correctness running amok." It's far more dangerous than any so-called "pussyfication" of society.
Lives are at stake. People have lost their lives due to jihad over insults. Even if Charlie Hebdo were "baiting" French Muslims, it's a satirical newspaper, possibly akin to the French version of The Onion.
Rather than take offense to any real or perceived insults to any religious faith, a far more productive response to cartoons or criticism of the faith would be defending the faith by making counter arguments in support of the faith. Might doesn't always make right.
My heart breaks for the families and friends of the victims, the 12 people who lost their lives and the five others who were critically injured. We must all take this as a call to action to ensure that people of conscience can feel free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
On Kirby Delauter and his so-called rights
Until the past couple of days, I'd never heard of Kirby Delauter.
He's a local politician in my home state of Maryland. Specifically, he's a member of the Frederick County Council.
So what did he do to become so famous (or infamous, as the case may be)?
He threatened to sue The Frederick News-Post for using his name without permission.
"Use my name again unauthorized and you'll be paying for an attorney," Delauter wrote in a Facebook post directed at a News-Post reporter As if any news outlet needs permission to use the name of public figures when they do public figure things.
I won't bore you all with a detailed deconstruction of just how idiotic this makes Delauter look. The News-Post does a nice job of that in an editorial with a brilliant piece of trolling thrown in for good measure.
I encourage you all to read the editorial itself, which I included in the link above. If you'd rather not, each first letter of the editorial spells out Delauter's name.
I won't be a copycat and do that here, but I was tempted. Boy was I tempted.
Besides the First Amendment discussion the News-Post and other outlets were so quick to trumpet as giving media the right to use his name, there's another element that makes Delauter's threat laughable. Namely, in the context of Frederick County, Maryland, he's a public figure. If someone were to write something or say something disparaging about Delauter in Montana, he might have a case because he's not a public figure there.
But this isn't about Montana or Dubuque, Iowa or Portland, Maine. This is about Maryland. This is about Frederick County, where he is a public figure, or at least a limited purpose public figure. As such, Delauter would have to prove there was actual malice on the part of the newspaper in printing his name.
Granted, the editorial might be used as evidence of such malice because of its expert trolling job. But I doubt it. It likely would be considered an act of public commentary. It would be considered part of a newspaper doing its job by being a public watchdog over those who are supposed to represent us or to pass laws to protect us.
Regardless of public figure or First Amendment issues involved, the act of threatening a newspaper with a lawsuit because they used his name simply fails the smell test. It's an attempt to intimidate the news media from doing its watchdog duty.
I hope Delauter has plenty of money if he wants to go ahead with suing the News-Post or anyone else who has suddenly decided to use his name. Now that he's made a fool of himself, he may now be a national public figure, which would make his case even more spurious than it already was.
Nice going, Kirby Delauter.
Sunday, January 04, 2015
R.I.P. Stuart Scott
There are some losses that just take more out of you than others.
Stuart Scott's death after a courageous battle with cancer at age 49 is one of those losses.
Some of my friends essentially grew up watching Scott rattle off catch phrases such as "booyah!" and "as cool as the other side of the pillow. I was already in my early 20s when he made his debut on ESPN, so I didn't get the same chance as my younger friends did.
I may not have always connected with some of his catch phrases, but I did connect with his inspirational battle with cancer. As a cancer survivor myself, I rooted for him to beat the disease.
When most of us think of beating a disease, we think of eradicating its existence from our bodies. We think of living decades beyond a diagnosis. We think of succumbing only to the ravages of old age.
Scott reminded us all that merely beating a diagnosis or sending diseased cells away from your body alone doesn't mean you beat cancer. Last July, when he gave a speech at the ESPY Awards, he explained what it truly means to beat cancer and other diseases like it.
"When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer," he said in words that take on a whole new meaning now. "You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and in the manner in which you live."
In 2006, I was in my first year as the managing editor of The Prince George's Sentinel, a weekly newspaper in Maryland. In November of that year, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. In the days leading up to the surgery and then the doctor's appointment where I found out what type of cancer it was, the fear and the uncertainty held a vise-like grip over me. Realizing that I could be battling for my life was a scary thought for someone who was still in his early 30's.
I was fortunate. The cancer I had was a seminoma. Long story short: It was the best possible outcome other than not having cancer at all. I found out on Dec. 1 that year that all the markers after my surgery came back normal, meaning the cancer did not metastasize. I went through single-dose chemotherapy, and just a day or so later, had a conversation with a friend who told me I'd never seemed more alive that I was at that moment.
Normally, I'm a very private person and wouldn't think to share my demons with others. I went public with my cancer battle. I wanted people to learn my story and possibly save their lives by going to the doctor. I don't consider myself in the same category of Scott or Lance Armstrong, who also survived testicular cancer. But I am grateful that I'm still among the living.
As painful as it is to write a tribute to someone who has left this world far too soon, I do so with Fleetwood Mac's "Beautiful Child" playing in my head. It's a tiny sliver of comfort in an hour of loss.
Goodbye, Stuart. You truly were "as cool as the other side of the pillow." And now, you will always be that way.
Stuart Scott's death after a courageous battle with cancer at age 49 is one of those losses.
Some of my friends essentially grew up watching Scott rattle off catch phrases such as "booyah!" and "as cool as the other side of the pillow. I was already in my early 20s when he made his debut on ESPN, so I didn't get the same chance as my younger friends did.
I may not have always connected with some of his catch phrases, but I did connect with his inspirational battle with cancer. As a cancer survivor myself, I rooted for him to beat the disease.
When most of us think of beating a disease, we think of eradicating its existence from our bodies. We think of living decades beyond a diagnosis. We think of succumbing only to the ravages of old age.
Scott reminded us all that merely beating a diagnosis or sending diseased cells away from your body alone doesn't mean you beat cancer. Last July, when he gave a speech at the ESPY Awards, he explained what it truly means to beat cancer and other diseases like it.
"When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer," he said in words that take on a whole new meaning now. "You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and in the manner in which you live."
In 2006, I was in my first year as the managing editor of The Prince George's Sentinel, a weekly newspaper in Maryland. In November of that year, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer. In the days leading up to the surgery and then the doctor's appointment where I found out what type of cancer it was, the fear and the uncertainty held a vise-like grip over me. Realizing that I could be battling for my life was a scary thought for someone who was still in his early 30's.
I was fortunate. The cancer I had was a seminoma. Long story short: It was the best possible outcome other than not having cancer at all. I found out on Dec. 1 that year that all the markers after my surgery came back normal, meaning the cancer did not metastasize. I went through single-dose chemotherapy, and just a day or so later, had a conversation with a friend who told me I'd never seemed more alive that I was at that moment.
Normally, I'm a very private person and wouldn't think to share my demons with others. I went public with my cancer battle. I wanted people to learn my story and possibly save their lives by going to the doctor. I don't consider myself in the same category of Scott or Lance Armstrong, who also survived testicular cancer. But I am grateful that I'm still among the living.
As painful as it is to write a tribute to someone who has left this world far too soon, I do so with Fleetwood Mac's "Beautiful Child" playing in my head. It's a tiny sliver of comfort in an hour of loss.
Goodbye, Stuart. You truly were "as cool as the other side of the pillow." And now, you will always be that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)