Rob's Tattoo Honors His Mom

I was heading back to my bike and he was pushing a stroller at the Anchorage 4th of July festival.

There was some small talk and I asked about the tattoos.  I've done some tattoo posts, but not many.*

As someone who won't write in a book with anything more permanent than a pencil, I'm not the sort of person who would likely get a tattoo.  But obviously it appeals to many.  For some folks there's lots of meaning.   So I asked Rob and he was more than ready to share.  Here's his answer:




Rob, I hope you get to see this.  Sorry, it took me much longer than I expected to get it up here.  If you know Rob, let him know it's here.






*It turns out I mentioned tattoos in a lot more posts than I realized (21 including this one.)  And that I left the third 't' out of tattoo many times.  I've gone through and fixed the typos - though it got me a lot of hits from people who misspelled tattoo in google - and added the label (tag) tattoo to all the posts with the word in it.  Of all of them there are three I'd recommend:

Burma Border Run 6c:  Tattoo, Birds, Thai Yai Village  - this was the first post (2008) with a tattoo - of a dragon on the back of a man in Burma.  At the time I didn't know about the book The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and I didn't understand why the post was getting so many hits.

Sold Out, Anthony's Arm, Moving Conversation - only a few weeks later, while visiting my son, I met his friend Anthony, who had one incredibly tattooed arm which I highlighted in this post.

Who Owns Your Tattoo?  - an interesting legal question about whether the tattoo artist retains rights to the design on your body should you choose to cash in on it.  The question isn't as absurd as it first sounds.





Going through all the posts about with tattoos got me to this post on interesting google searches.  I used to do such posts every few months, but at some point google stopped showing everybody's search terms.  Some still slip through, but not many.  I think it probably helps people's privacy a little bit, but it was interesting to see how folks got to the site.

[Feedburner's been getting things up generally within 24 hours, those sometimes not at all.  I've let it slide lately, but I'll try to repost this one and see if this one goes up to the blogrolls.  Sorry to subscribers who get duplicate emails.][11:45pm - this reposted version made it through.  I'll take down the original post.]

Say What? When The Outrageous Becomes Normal [Updated]

Sometimes I can't quite believe what I'm reading in the newspapers.  The ideas are so wrong, I wonder how reporters can just drop them into an article as though the thoughts were normal.  If they are the new normal, it is even more disturbing.  I'd like to think the writers are ironically dropping these little bombs intentionally, hoping the readers will react as I'm reacting.

Here are some examples from Tuesday's Alaska Dispatch News.

Example 1:  Sources on the story about Trump's orthodox Jewish son-in-law.  (Yes, that thought is itself pretty bizarre) (originally from the NY Times, which has more than the ADN reprint.)

"Mr. Kushner’s role was described in more than two dozen interviews with friends, colleagues and campaign staff members, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could disclose interactions that were supposed to remain private. Mr. Kushner declined to be interviewed." [emphasis added] 

I can't help but translate the bolded part in my head into:  "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but I have no integrity and I just can't keep a secret."

I don't blame the media.  This is how the rest of us get glimpses behind the scenes.  From people telling secrets.  But which secrets should the media pass on and which keep to themselves?

There are also some serious journalistic problems here.

• How do you know it isn't made up?  Maybe the sources are just playing with the journalist.  
• How does one confirm something like this?  From other anonymous sources?   There are ways, but how many journalists take the time and trouble?
• How do you know this isn't planted information.  What the source is really saying in that case is, "Hey, stupid journalist, I'm going to tell you I have to be anonymous,  and you're going to be excited because you're getting juicy gossip, but really my boss wants this information to get out and I'm using you to do it."

On the other hand, legitimate whistleblowers who reach out to the media as a last resort when there are illegal, dangerous, or otherwise important information the public needs to know, are playing important public service roles.  If they are right. 
And  whistleblowers often legitimately fear serious financial and physical harm, even death if their identity is found out.

[UPDATE July 6, 2016 3:30pm:  Here's a more legitimate situation of an anonymous source in an LA Times story today about misrepresentation of the success of missile tests in January:

"The closest the interceptor came to the target was a distance 20 times greater than what was expected, said the Pentagon scientists, who spoke on condition they not be identified."

Why is this different? The person is revealing that the government agencies and private businesses have been lying about the performance of potentially life saving equipment the government's already spent $40 billion in since 2004 (over $3 billion per year.) The story quotes a second scientist and the first acknowledgement from the agency that there were actually problems.]

In the Kushner case, these are folks who are supposed to be loyal to Kushner, yet, if these weren't intentional plants, they disclosed information that was supposed to remain private.  What kind of person does that to their friends or to their boss?  This sort of thing poisons a group as people try to figure out who leaked what, and innocent people are suspected along with the guilty.  

Example 2:  Tim Kaine's 'one job only' (from the original LA Times piece)  The article is about how Tim Kaine is now ('a' or 'the'?) shortlist favorite to be Clinton's VP candidate.

"On NBC’s “Meet The Press” last week, an appearance facilitated by the Clinton campaign, Kaine offered a quick summary of his experience: mayor of Virginia’s capital of Richmond, its lieutenant governor, governor, Democratic Party chairman and now U.S. senator. 

But, he added, 'I have got one job and one job only right now, and that is to work hard for Hillary Clinton.'”

If I were a Virginia resident, I'd be wondering when I lost half my Senatorial representation.  As a US citizen, I'm wondering why we're paying this US Senator who seems to have abandoned his Senate job to campaign for Clinton.  OK, I realize this might be taken out of context, but dammit, he's being paid to be a US Senator and he should be careful about what he says.


Example 3:  In an article about Amazon dropping 'list prices' (Again, originally a NY Times article)

"Amazon wants to be so deeply embedded in a customer’s life that buying happens as naturally as breathing, and nearly as often."

Do I really have to say anything about that truly appalling thought?  We've gone from 'the customer is always right' to 'the customer is totally brainwashed.'


Of course, these are just little symptoms of this trend of the outrageous becoming normal.  The biggest offense is Donald Trump's long stream of racist, sexist, and other forms of nasty istics.  That his bombast is cheered by some as refreshingly honest might be a topic for another post.

What Happens When Your Parents Aren't Who You Think They Are?

When raising the issue of epistemology (very loosely, how do you know what's true?) with my students, I'd sometimes ask things like, "How do you know your mother is your mother?"

It quickly become obvious that all their evidence is second hand.  They have evidence (such as birth certificates)  and what other people tell them.  But there is always a possibility that there mother really isn't their mother.  Maybe she's their grandmother and their sister is their mother.  Or maybe they're adopted.  It's a good opening to issues of knowing what is true and the different rules different people use to verify truth.

But this story I'm going to link to is even more unlikely.  What if your mother is really your biological mother, but she's not who you think she is.

The Guardian has a story Saturday of two Canadian-born, naturalized American brothers, who, well, here's the beginning of the article:

Tim Foley turned 20 on 27 June 2010. To celebrate, his parents took him and his younger brother Alex out for lunch at an Indian restaurant not far from their home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Both brothers were born in Canada, but for the past decade the family had lived in the US. The boys’ father, Donald Heathfield, had studied in Paris and at Harvard, and now had a senior role at a consultancy firm based in Boston. Their mother, Tracey Foley, had spent many years focused on raising her children, before taking a job as a real estate agent. To those who knew them, they seemed a very ordinary American family, albeit with Canadian roots and a penchant for foreign travel. Both brothers were fascinated by Asia, a favoured holiday destination, and the parents encouraged their sons to be inquisitive about the world: Alex was only 16, but had just returned from a six-month student exchange in Singapore. 

After a buffet lunch, the four returned home and opened a bottle of champagne to toast Tim reaching his third decade. The brothers were tired; they had thrown a small house party the night before to mark Alex’s return from Singapore, and Tim planned to go out later. After the champagne, he went upstairs to message his friends about the evening’s plans. There came a knock at the door, and Tim’s mother called up that his friends must have come early, as a surprise. 

At the door, she was met by a different kind of surprise altogether: a team of armed, black-clad men holding a battering ram. They streamed into the house, screaming, “FBI!” Another team entered from the back; men dashed up the stairs, shouting at everyone to put their hands in the air. Upstairs, Tim had heard the knock and the shouting, and his first thought was that the police could be after him for underage drinking: nobody at the party the night before had been 21, and Boston police took alcohol regulations seriously. 

When he emerged on to the landing, it became clear the FBI was here for something far more serious. The two brothers watched, stunned, as their parents were put in handcuffs and driven away in separate black cars. Tim and Alex were left behind with a number of agents, who said they needed to begin a 24-hour forensic search of the home; they had prepared a hotel room for the brothers. One of the men told them their parents had been arrested on suspicion of being “unlawful agents of a foreign government”.

The reporter follows up on many of the questions you're probably asking yourselves.  Here's the link again.

This is a great story for a high school class - I can't imagine any high school students who wouldn't be totally sucked into this story and imagining what it would be like if this happened to them.  And there are lots of lessons a teacher could get the students to explore.

AIFF 2015: The Newtok Film We Are All Related Here

I mentioned this film earlier today and the lawsuit between the competing leadership groups in the village of Newtok.  Well, it's pretty clear the courts have sided with the new leadership and told the old leadership to clear the offices and make the village documents available to the new leaders.

The film didn't mention the conflict.  There was a fair number of folks (I'd guess 50-60) and lots of questions at the end.  Most were about technical issues about moving a village and which agencies are involved.  One question did get filmmaker Brian McDermott  mention something about political conflict, but since he couldn't figure out who was telling the truth, he decided to leave it out.  

I caught up with McDermott in the lobby and asked him about that decision to leave it out, and after pushing him a bit, he said he had put something in about the dispute in an earlier version and it killed the film.  One of his local advisors on this told him it didn't really matter because there were 180 villages facing this same problem and it's the bigger issue that matters.  

I guess it all depends on what your intent is as a filmmaker.  To be an advocate for a cause or to be a good journalist?  And it's reasonable to take either stand.  Personally, even as an advocate, I wouldn't want to do a film (or a blog post) that left out the proverbial elephant in the room, which would let opponents pounce on that omission.  

And to his credit, McDermott listened and acknowledged my criticism as fair.  I did suggest at least a note written at the end of the film that acknowledged the dispute, the difficulty in covering it in the film, and while it might have delayed things a bit, it wasn't the key factor that was preventing Newtok and 180 other villages from being moved.

I'd not that McDermott is from Pennsylvania, connected with someone from Newtok on Facebook and came up to make the film.  One could say that was gutsy or a little naive.   Having spent  a little time in Wales, Alaska, I think that McDermott at the very least gives non-Alaska a little sense of the living conditions and of the connection of the people to their land because of their subsistence lifestyle.  It does personalize what otherwise are rather exotic places that most people in the Lower 48 can't imagine.  

And he does have some of the characters in the lawsuits up on the screen so you can see who they are.  But this is a version of what local reporters call parachute journalism - where outsiders fly in for a few days, get their stories, and leave without really knowing the history and context of where they've been or the stories they're telling.  

And if you compare it to the time Nick Brandestini spent in Barrow to get Children of the Arctic filmed right, you can see the huge difference.  But Nick has more film credits and had a much bigger budget - enough to fly the subjects of the film to Zurich and Anchorage for the showings of the film.

People have to start somewhere, but telling a village's story is also a giant responsibility.  I think his intentions were good, I don't suspect this film will do much harm, and it may even do a little good.

I also think that the Anchorage International Film Festival needs to think long and hard about what Alaska movies it accepts.  Just because a film is about Alaska doesn't mean it should be in the festival.  Should this film have gotten in?  Probably.  Should it win any awards?  I think the omission of any mention of the local dispute is a big flaw.  It's such a huge factor of what's happening in the village, I just can't see how it could be ignored completely.  Especially since the title and some of the film content makes it all seem like 'we're one big happy family.'

Suppose . . .

that you were riding your bike enjoying the weather and saw a young man laying down his bike at the entrance to the tunnel ahead of you.  Suppose he pulled a can a spray paint out of his back pack just as you rode up.  Suppose he looked at you at that moment.

What would you do?  What would you say?

Would you treat this like seeing some rarely seen critter and stop and watch?

Would you not even notice and zip on by?

Would you pull out your cell phone and call 911?

Such were my thoughts as I went through a tunnel and noticed all the graffiti that normally I didn't see because coming from the light into the dark with sunglasses on makes it hard to see.

I'm partial to graffiti, though I can see multiple sides to the issue. 

Movies like" Exit Through The Gift Shop" give one the sense of why people tag walls. 

And of course Banksy takes graffiti up to the top ranks of political art.  His work is artistically first rate, his content is trenchant, and the placement of his work meaningful.  This Anchorage tunnel graffiti is, well, not great art.

If this were showing up on your house or your fence, you'd be unhappy.  At least this is on public walls and in a tunnel where only people going through the tunnel see it.  And if you're speeding by on a bike on a sunny day, the sudden change in light would make it likely your pupils wouldn't adjust in time to even see it.

What is the lure for these budding artists?  The term 'tags' suggests the messages dogs leave on fire hydrants and trees.  How many REFs are scattered around Anchorage?

I did get to talk to several graffiti artists - and these guys had serious artistic skill - at the library's innovation lab graffiti exhibit.  Here you can see  their work and pictures of the artists MENO, ewok, Bisco, and Will.

. 



Some property owners have come to appreciate graffiti and given permission for artists to paint on their walls - as in this example of a Banksy in LA which the gas station owner took with him after he sold the gas station.    But that post also highlights a very young man who was killed by police for painting walls.

This one shows a bit more promise.  There isn't a lot of time to get your work up, unless you come late at night.








So, supposing you came across the creator of one of these Zero Percent for the Arts additions to public works with spray can in hand?

University of Alaska Presidential Search Part 3: Resume Padding -Or- When Is A Publication Not A Publication?

It's with a heavy heart that I have to conclude that UA President finalist Jim Johnsen has padded his resume.  In a section labeled "Selected Publications"  there are three items listed.  None of them can be legitimately called a 'publication.'  While this may seem trivial to some, in the academic world where he has spent a good part of his career and where this job would be, publications make or break a faculty career.

Dr. Johnsen, according to his resume, has never been in a tenure track position, so actually having publications is not something that would have been required of him.  Sure, having some publications might enhance his standing, but they aren't necessary.  My concern is that he padded his resume to make his accomplishments look like more than they were.  And while this section was labeled 'Selected Publications,' implying that there are other works that would be legitimately called publications in an academic setting, there aren't.  The rest of this post will give the details of the documents identified in the resume and discuss the issues of academic publications and resume padding.


Finalist Announcement

When the one finalist for the UA president was announced, I was partly surprised by who it was - someone I had interacted with in my role as a faculty union grievance representative - but even more so by the fact that there was only one candidate.  There was a search in 1998 that resulted in only two candidates, but the 1990 and 2010 searches had four and three respectively.

The Board of Regents webpage had a link to the resume.  As I looked through it I saw there were three items listed under "Selected Publications."  They were all topics that related to University of Alaska labor relations, my connection to Johnsen.

Screen shot from Jim Johnsen resume

So I googled to find them.  I got nothing.

The 'Publications'

I called the UAA Consortium library reference desk and the librarian said she had been looking unsuccessfully herself.  She suggested I contact the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education, where  "The Restructuring . . ." piece was supposed to be in their 2000 proceedings.  (I had already been to their website, but hadn't done more.)  So I called and asked if they had a copy. Michelle told me that they had copies of all the proceedings online, but that the organization had been in turmoil for about five years and their collection went from 1972-1999 and then 2006-the present.  The years 2000 - 2005 are listed as unavailable.

The next day my inbox had two copies of that paper.  Both the people I'd talked to had contacted Jim Johnsen.  The National Center sent me a copy they got from Johnsen and Johnsen himself sent me a copy with a promise to send the other two when he got home over the weekend, which he promptly did.

The first one - "The Restructuring . . ." -  looked like a rough draft, partially in outline.  Something that one might use as notes for a presentation.  I called the National Center for the Study of  Collective Bargaining in Higher Education back and asked about their proceedings; were they refereed or edited?  I was told they were, at best, loosely edited for typos, but were basically presenters' papers printed out for conference attendees.  Some conferences publish peer reviewed and edited conference proceedings.  That wasn't the case here.  And, the year that Johnsen presented this paper, the organization was in turmoil.  The Center didn't have any copies of proceedings for that year.  I later emailed Johnsen to see if he had a copy of the proceedings and he didn't.  That doesn't mean something wasn't printed up that year, but neither the Center nor Johnsen has copies.

Then I got the other two papers.

The Essential Elements of a Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement in Higher Education  says "30 September 2008 draft" at the bottom of each page.  In the text it says, "In this chapter . . ." but the citation didn't include the name of a book.  This was clearly not a publication.

Innovation in Faculty Collective Bargaining  is another conference presentation, but not a publication.

So I emailed Jim Johnsen and asked:

1.  “The Essential Elements of A Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement in Higher Education”  Is there an actual published version of this?  It says Chapter and it says “draft” so I was wondering.

2.  "Innovation in Faculty Collective Bargaining"  - This says “Presented at” and begins, Thank you.  Good morning.  Is there a published version of this somewhere?

3.  “The Restructuring of the University of Alaska System”  - This mentions Proceedings.   Given the nature of the paper - lots of outline - I’m assuming this was not peer reviewed?  Was this anything more than all the papers at the conference were bound for attendees?  Do you have a copy of the proceedings?

4.  Your resume has these documents in a section called “Selected Publications.”  Are there additional publications as that suggests?  Can you give me links to them?

Jim Johnsen replied quickly:

"Happy to clarify, Steve.

"Elements" was written for a book, edited by Dan Julius, in faculty bargaining. Last I heard (several years ago) it was published by some academic press. Not sure of its status.

"innovations" was a presentation at the CUNY higher education collective bargaining conference that I was told would be included in the proceedings of the conference. I refer you to CUNY for those papers I presented there over the years that were in the conference proceedings.

As to other papers, I gave UA all the papers I managed to hold onto through numerous personal and job moves over the years."

I don't know of any faculty member who doesn't know if the chapter he wrote got published or not.  Maybe if they've got 30 chapters in various books they might not remember about one or two of them, but if it's your only publication, I'd think you'd remember for sure.  So I checked further.

I quickly found an email address for Dan Julius and asked him if the book had ever been published.  He also wrote back quickly:

"Good day. What Dr. Johnsen says is true. He did write that chapter and it was accepted for the book. The book has not yet been published due to a variety of reasons having to do with the editors, one of whom is myself. So the book has not been published yet, if it is, Jim's chapter will be included. I hope this helps.

Dan Julius"

So, it hasn't been published and 'if it is' Jim's chapter will be in it.


Does it matter? Publications

The tenure and promotion process in universities is excruciating for most faculty.  The worklife of a college professor these days is much more stressful than it was in the recent past even, and for many, particularly mothers, it can be impossible. (For example or example 2)  In UAA tenure reviews all the documents are scrutinized by the chair, by the college promotion and tenure committee, by the dean, by the campus wide committee, the provost, and then the chancellor.  The decisions can end someone's career.  Of the three parts of the faculty workload - teaching, research, and service - the most difficult for the majority of faculty, in teaching institutions like UAA, is research because research involves long-term projects that have to be squeezed out on top of the short term demands of teaching and service activities.  In some departments the criteria are vague and in other departments they are listed fairly clearly, such as "at least X peer reviewed articles or book chapters and Y  presentations." 

From Wikipedia:

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal article, book or thesis form. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

While different disciplines define their publications differently, by no stretch of my imagination, do the documents listed under 'Selected Publications' fall into the category of publications.  These are conference presentations, the first of many steps toward publication.

Does It Matter?  Enhancing One's Resume

From CNN article  "Resume Padding: Inconsequential or Inexcusable?":

"It may sound crazy.  Why would a high-ranking executive lie about his or her credentials, especially now, when all it takes is a quick phone call or Internet search to verify information?

Yet it happens more often than you might think. From a white lie about time spent as a customer service rep to a whopper about earning an MBA, résumé padding occurs regularly across industries, experts say. In a 2010 survey of 1,818 organizations, 69% reported catching a job candidate lying on his or her résumé, according to employment screening service HireRight."

The 2012 article goes on to ask readers what they think should happen to the then newly hired Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson.   A dissident shareholder had pointed out that Thompson's resume said he had BA degrees in computer science and accounting. Many called for his resignation, others defended him.

"Thompson has a degree in accounting, not computer science, but frankly at this point in his career does it really matter what he studied as an undergraduate?" Newsweek technology editor Dan "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons asked in a Daily Beast column.

"(Thompson is) 54 years old, has been CEO of PayPal, and before that held high positions at Inovant, a subsidiary of Visa, and Barclays Global Investors. He's qualified to run Yahoo."

A 2014 BBC Capital article finishes the Scott Thompson/Yahoo story:

Remember Scott Thompson? He was the chief executive who had to leave Yahoo in 2012 for misstating his educational credentials on his resume. Thompson had said that he graduated with a computer-science degree, but it turned out that the university he attended didn’t offer such a degree until he had completed school. When this fact came to light, he left after just four months in the job.

In Scott Thompson's case, it probably didn't matter if he had a second degree in computer science.  He'd proven himself on the job since he graduated from college.

The real issue is integrity, honesty.  Is this someone who is straightforward?  If he lies in little things like this, when else might he sugarcoat the facts?

The same applies to Jim Johnsen.  Johnsen hasn't been in a tenure track position or any other job that required he have publications.  It's good that he has some conference presentations.  What's not good is that he felt the need to enhance his record by calling those papers, 'publications.'

Let me put this into context.  I was a grievance representative when Jim Johnsen was the university labor relations officer.  If I had had a faculty member whose resume had the same sort of 'Selected Publications" section, he would have been turned down for tenure and required to leave the university.  And if that employee would have appealed and it got up to the statewide appeal level, I have absolutely no doubt that Jim Johnsen would have had no mercy in his rejection of those publications.  And rightfully so.  I probably would have done my best to talk the faculty member out of making an appeal in the first place because there would have been no way he could have won.

I challenge the Board of Regents to take this issue seriously.  I know they are in a hard spot.  They've spent time and resources on this search since President Gamble announced his retirement last December.  They felt at the end that there was only one candidate who was worthy to be sent out to the campuses to meet with the university community. 

But I would argue that it doesn't bode well for the University of Alaska to hire a president who would pad his resume to make his record look better than it is.  Yahoo's board knew it probably didn't matter whether Scott Thompson had one or two degrees.  But he still had to leave.  It was about integrity. 

When Dennis McMillian retired recently as CEO of the Foraker Group, he wrote some parting thoughts in their newsletter, including some "Dennisisms" on hiring.  Here are three of the six:

Hiring:

• Stop hiring people based on superficial qualities — it’s easy to put lipstick on a pig. Rather, hire the person with the right values and attitude.
• Skills can be taught, attitude cannot.
• Obviously, some positions require credentials, but even in those situations, rate values and attitudes higher than degrees or experience, then you will minimize turnover and maximize your organization’s capacity.

People with the right values don't embellish their resumes. 

The Board of Regent has posted a Leadership Profile for the UA President (in part):

"The next president should continue to elevate UA’s national visibility and be effective with relevant agencies of the federal government. He or she should work effectively with University of Alaska Foundation leaders. He or she must be a coach for chancellors, a wise counselor for the board and trustworthy resource for the legislature."

I doubt that a person who has padded his resume would positively elevate UA's national visibility.  And the chancellors, the board, and the legislature would be constantly wondering whether his coaching and counseling was trustworthy.

This sort of post is troubling to publish.  It does not make me happy.  I'd rather this search were over and the university could move along to find creative responses its many challenges.  But I don't see that I have a choice.  It's better we know this before anyone is hired than afterward as in the Yahoo case.

Ethical Issues Rasied By Electronic Media - Part 2

At the Alaska Press Club Conference two weeks ago, I hosted a breakout session to talk about ethical issues raised by electronic media.  I did a brief post outlining the issues I had in mind before we met.  The breakout session was small.  It was during lunch and the other session was on the open meetings law.  I'm going to jot down my notes here before I forget them. 

We had a diverse group - a small town online newspaper publisher, a free lance photographer, a blogger (me), and two broadcast folks.

We started with me giving an overview of the topic and then we added some other interesting twists.

The basic issue is how is/will the nature of electronic media open new and troubling issues?  And how should we address them?

1.  Changing History

Here are a few issues we discussed here:

A.     Changing Names of News Outlets.  The previous post began with my concern that an Anchorage Daily News article I found from 2011, was under the banner of Alaska Dispatch News.  The Dispatch didn't buy the Daily News until 2014.  While on the surface, not a significant issue, it symbolizes the problem of retroactively changing things.

Rather than leave pre-Dispatch articles under a Daily News banner, it now looks like the Dispatch has always been the paper in Anchorage.  With fewer and fewer libraries keeping hard copies of newspapers and journals, we are vulnerable to having the past altered like this.   For historians and other academics citing sources based on changed names of newspapers, there will be lots of errors and misleading historical references.  People will think, from the website and the citations based on it, that the Dispatch has been around for much longer than it has.  And the Anchorage Daily News' existence will be extinguished.  That does change the history of Anchorage and of the evolution of media in Alaska.

B.  The Potential Loss of Archives.  Steve Heimal related in our session how tapes of his shows had been given to the state archives (I think that was where), but they had given them to someplace else.  He was scrambling to find out where they ended up and if they would be publicly available or even survive at all.  Of course, the internet makes preserving audio archives far easier and more accessible to the public than what existed before.  But what gets saved and what disappears?  This brought up the question,  "What happens if the Dispatch goes belly-up and doesn't sell, who would keep up the website?  With libraries cutting costs by going digital, all the history recorded in the newspaper would vanish.

C.  Simply Changing History.  Once a newspaper is printed and ends up in the library's archives, it's preserved.  Someone could steal it or cut out parts, but a reader would know something was missing.  With online archives, what's to stop someone from going back and changing the story?  It could be to make the author look better (such as getting rid of a prediction that turned out wrong).  It could also involve getting rid of other news that  over time has become politically or economically compromising.   The recent Anchorage mayoral election involved two audio tapes that were alluded to but 'missing' and then appeared in ways that were intended to hurt opposition candidates. Web-caching exists, but doesn't seem to be universal, and many people don't know how to use it. 

D.  Editing Mistakes.   The Alaska Press Club contest rules say:

"All entries must be submitted as they were published or broadcast."

I know on my blog I can easily go back and make whatever changes I want.  And after talking to others, both bloggers and traditional media, it's clear they do too.  But there don't seem to be any clear rules for how to do this, no common guidelines for what is reasonable and what's not.  It doesn't make sense to me to leave up typos or even graceless prose when I can easily fix them.  So I've come up with my own rules.  Transparency is the underlying principle:  If people know about the changes, what was erased and what was added, then it's ok.

Rule 1:  If it is a minor grammatical or spelling correction that doesn't affect the content, then I can change it and not mark the change.  In the session someone mentioned a time factor - you can fix it within the first 24 hours that way.  He said that was practice at his station, but not a written policy. Not marking the change isn't intended to hide it, but it just gets messy with a lot of little notes about this and that.
Rule 2:  If the change is substantive, then I have to strikeout the old  [and bracket the new].  I try to note when the update was made, but I haven't been consistent unless I'm adding totally new information.   Changes can come from comments to the post, new developments, or just rereading a post and realizing there is an error.

Again, transparency is critical - letting the reader know what you are doing, and if it's not obvious, why. 

2.  Other Issues

We had a photographer in our session and he raised the issues of digital doctoring of photos.  Photographers have always enhanced their pictures in the dark room, but new technologies allow for making it possible to blatantly lie with photos.  Again, I try to always mention when a picture has been changed - more than cropping, contrast, and exposure.  And if I significantly change the look with contrast or exposure I'll mention that too.  But when I mentioned I've added someone to a picture - just to get them all in - the group was pretty down on that.  Even when I said I tell readers exactly what I've done and why.  (I think I may have done it once. Not even sure of that.)  And I've taken to posting pictures that are chopped up with some aspects more prominently featured. Often these are nature pictures.  For example see the last picture on this post.  No one is being fooled here.  The photographer in our group cited a well known (he said, I didn't know him) photographer who basically said that with current technology making it easier for everyone to take technically great pictures, it was necessary for 'photographers' to go further, to enhance the craft.  I think I'm in that camp, but again, transparency is required. 

Recommendations

These are a few things our session thought the Alaska Press Club should consider.

1.  Check out what others are doing on this. People I've talked to say things are changing so fast they haven't developed policies. For example,  Management of Electronic and Digital Media  By Alan Albarran has a section on ethics, but it doesn't seem to deal specifically with these issues.  It's more general and follows a legal ethics model of defining obligations to different constituencies. But I'm sure someone, somewhere is addressing this.  I just haven't found it or talked to anyone else up on these issues. 

2.  Change the Alaska Press Club contest rules to reflect the reality of online media being changed.  For example - what is the original story at the Alaska Dispatch News?  The first go at the story online.  The printed version that comes out later?  The updated online stories which get edited as the story unfolds?  I'm sure the rules were written before this was common.  It's time to revise the rules to reflect reality and have everyone competing by the same rules.

3.  Consider developing standards for archiving the news.  What kinds of protections can be put in place to prevent changes in old stories and to alert readers to the changes when they happen?  For example, I think the Alaska Dispatch News should either revert old Anchorage Daily News heading on stories or at the very least have a prominent note that says, "This was published originally in the Anchorage Daily News."

When I search journals through the library online indexes, I usually get - it seems - to the original website of the journal.  Separate backup sites or other ways of story data should be found.  This one is bigger than just the Alaska Press Club.

4.  Develop standards for changing stories after the fact and supporting efforts to preserving original work as it was published.  How and when is it ok to do this?  How should readers be notified?  Are there time limits? 

For preserving the original work, Web-caching already exists, but I'm not sure how comprehensive or organized it is.

That's all I have for now on this - some notes. 

Ethics On The Fly

[From Alaska Press Club session - these are rough notes, missed a lot, but it will give you a sense of the session.  Too much happening to do more.  Lots of good discussion.]

Presenters
Jacqui Banaszynski

Lanpher and Banaszynski

Katherine Lanpher

Ethical Responsibilities of an Editor?

Editor and reporter not different - emphasis different.  Reporter more in the field and with resources.  Relationship fraught with conflict - obligation to sources, don't want to lose them, cutting deals with them.

Sports beat reporter didn't do serious sports investigation reports.

Editor's responsibility - ask all the right questions, protect reporters and company.  Both have responsibility to craft.  Pressure points - want to protect reporter, but have bigger responsibilities.

Didn't think we had ethical quandaries, but, yes, off course.

Free lance reporting - consequences.  Al Jazeera has three reporters in Egyptian prison.  Responsibility for safety.  James Foley, Danny Pearl - doing one dumb thing.  Not run dangerous stuff, then others will follow.  If someone takes him hostage, we can't send in rescue.  

Bring back to other end of the spectrum.  Every decision journalist makes is an ethical one.  Who to talk to who not to talk to.  Using one word versus another can be an ethical decision.

Take for granted, fair and ethical, get all sides of the story.  So why do we take police report, maybe talk to victim, but who are we missing?  We do that all over, don't talk to the suspects.

Reporter versus Editor - back to Rolling Stone - we could talk for days.  Huge cohort adamant that reporter should never write again.   She was a freelancer.  She didn't have regular benefits, salary,  . . .

But she still shouldn't have done what she did.

Decision that might be ethical in one situation isn't in another. 

Margaret Sullivan - interface between NY Times and public.

Ethics at a small time publication.

My other half is journalist.  Got fired when economy went bad.  60 year old white guy, unemployed.  Invented his own job.  Funky little fabulous newspaper.  I was invited to big fancy lunch for politician.
You can't go.
I have to.
You can't go to fundraiser, you're a journalist, unless you go to Republican fund raisers.
Publisher, me, had a long discussion with the editor (me), and the publisher won.

New Yorker Piece - Rachel Aviv  - small town newspaper reporting New Town B - editor is a philosopher.  Made decision how they were going to serve their community after watching how the national media covered things.  Consciously decided to do news that would help the community - never mention the name of the massacre.

Ethics is not something you have, rather something you do.  Values is something you have. 

 Discussion of small time publisher going to fund raiser.
Won't vote in primaries - if have to register for a party.  
I don't want anyone to think they know where I am politically and how that would affect my writing. 
This is changing with your generation - they see and question the false neutrality of the press.  Say, wouldn't it be better to be open where we stand on things.  And that raises interesting territory.  Where do you draw the line?  Yes I'm going to be involved in my community and civic life, but will do with with certain guidelines. 
I assume if you go to Occupy Wall Street, you're going to cover it.  My boss, a Brit, at the Guardian, it was policy that you went to the protest.  We've had heated words because we have a South African . . . 

Things got more into advocacy - sending a gay reporter to cover the Obergefell case in the Supreme Court.  There was a long discussion about whether transparency is enough to overcome people's bias.  Early AIDS writing was done by gay press, because they knew what was happening.  What about covering the opening of a new store owned by reporter's sister, who is the only reporter in a small town.  Response:  Disclose the relationship.

Off the record.  Don't assume people use it the same way.  Be clear what that person means.  Public officials owe people information, even private officials in some cases, probably shouldn't let them go off the record.  Exploratory interview - still trying to figure out what the story is.  "I'm still trying to decide if there is a story about how public records.   .  I need help figuring whether there is a story."

"Why don't we try it on the record.  How much can you tell me on the record?"

Different with public officials who know how to dance and private citizens who don't usually deal with the press, need time to explain. 

Moved to small town, people weren't used to reporters reporting everything.  Set up one-on-one meetings with officials and talked about the public meetings law and my roll and how we could get along - and that helped a lot. 

Blogger Ethics: Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?

One of  my 2013 Anchorage Film Festival posts included a short overview of the film "Tales from the Organ Trade."  A documentary about selling and buying kidneys and the people involved - on various sides, sellers, buyers, and doctors.  

Today someone left a comment - basically, it's an ad for a hospital that buys and sells kidneys in India. 

So, what should I do with it?  Delete it?  Leave it as a comment on the movie?  When I went to get the link for that old post, I saw that there was already another similar type of comment.  I can't remember if I saw it and decided to leave it, or I never saw it.  It was posted a few months after the original post.  

The film itself was not a clear cut condemnation.  While it showed how poor folks risked their lives for pitifully small amounts of money and rich folks spent huge amounts to get a kidney, it did show some strong arguments for letting people who need a kidney pay for one.  

Thoughts? 

Apollo Hospital Friday, March 27, 2015 at 6:11:00 AM AKDT

Hi friends greeting from Apollo Hospital India (Dr. Leo Gomez).
Specialist hospital that buy human kidney.
If you are Interested in Selling or buying Kidney
Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Phone number : +9191678XXXX
Email : apollohospitalkidneydep@gmail.com
Dr. Leo Gomez

SteveSaturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM AKDT
I don't know. Normally I'd delete that message, but it's an eerie reminder of what the movie was about. Readers, what should I do with it? Leave it? Delete it?

Blogger Ethics: Leave Comment From Kidney Trader?

One of  my 2013 Anchorage Film Festival posts included a short overview of the film "Tales from the Organ Trade."  A documentary about selling and buying kidneys and the people involved - on various sides, sellers, buyers, and doctors. 

[UPDATE March 30, 2015:  Inspired by the most recent Anon (3/30/15) comment, I'm adding a link to HBO where you can download the movie "Tales From The Organ Trade."  You can also go to the movie's website where you can watch the trailer.]

Today someone left a comment - basically, it's an ad for a hospital that buys and sells kidneys in India. 

So, what should I do with it?  Delete it?  Leave it as a comment on the movie?  When I went to get the link for that old post, I saw that there was already another similar type of comment.  I can't remember if I saw it and decided to leave it, or I never saw it.  It was posted a few months after the original post.  

The film itself was not a clear cut condemnation.  While it showed how poor folks risked their lives for pitifully small amounts of money and rich folks spent huge amounts to get a kidney, it did show some strong arguments for letting people who need a kidney pay for one.  

Thoughts? 

Apollo HospitalFriday, March 27, 2015 at 6:11:00 AM AKDT

Hi friends greeting from Apollo Hospital India (Dr. Leo Gomez).
Specialist hospital that buy human kidney.
If you are Interested in Selling or buying Kidney
Please do not hesitate to contact us.

Phone number : +919167859153
Email : apollohospitalkidneydep@gmail.com
Dr. Leo Gomez

ReplyDelete

SteveSaturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM AKDT
I don't know. Normally I'd delete that message, but it's an eerie reminder of what the movie was about. Readers, what should I do with it? Leave it? Delete it?
ReplyDelete

Suppose Your New Job Was To Betray Your Brothers

Two couples have tried to create the Perfect Arrangement.  It's the 1950s.  Bob Martindale works for the State Department.  Neighbor Norma Baxter is his secretary.  They live in adjoining apartments, appropriately connected by a closet.

March 19 - April 4 Thu/Fri/Sat 7pm

Out North - Primrose and Debarr (kitty corner from Costco)

So this doesn't get lost:   this is a funny play, and you'll laugh, but it packs a punch.  

Bob's assignment of late, has been to root Communists out of the State Department, but they're mostly gone and now his boss has assigned him the task of getting rid of the deviants.  He undertakes this job knowing that he and his lover and Norma and hers are safe in their Perfect Arrangement.

Opening Night Reception After The Performance at Out North

This is a neatly done play by Topher Payne - who was here last Thursday for the West Coast premiere of his work.  There's lots going on in the play.  There are the two different worlds - a social facade of voice and intonation and topic for straight visitors where the ladies chatter about recipes and shopping, the men disparage the women,  and then there's the more open expression of ideas in uncensored vocabulary when the two couples are alone.

But the play is not simply a play about being in the closet or homosexuals for that matter.  Rather it's about marginalized people who have learned to act one way in the outside world and another at home, and who are always worried that their real being will be discovered and always tortured because it can't be.  This play could be about black slaves in the south, or women in a male dominated work place, or undocumented workers. . .

And as the tension rose when Bob was required to make lists of deviants to be fired, I couldn't help think about the Jewish capos in concentration camps who got slightly better treatment for cooperating with the Nazis and keeping tabs on the others.  The dialogue was explicit about the conflict between trying to save oneself and one's duty to the others.  About the small benefits of blending in versus the great losses of denying one's true identity.  We could see the characters' slow debilitating stress of staying hidden, the fear of being discovered and the change it will mean, and the enticing but dangerous thought of standing up and declaring one's identity.  Echoes of the struggle in Selma.  

This is a powerful play with strong acting -  well worth seeing.  Below is a video of the playwright, Topher Payne, talking at the reception after the performance.  You can also see a video with directors/actors Krista Schwarting and Jay Burns here.

"Facing Human Vulnerability in a Dangerous World"

I'd love to do an in depth post on this, probably starting with something about how human behavior and moral dilemmas and the debates about what is the right ethical path has been hotly and insightfully debated for over 2000 years.   Professor Aaron Stalnaker is going to be here tomorrow (Wednesday March 18) to talk about what ancient Chinese philosophers said about the same kinds of issues we face today.   I'd like to write about how easy it is for us to think that people living today are so much smarter than those who lived in the distant past.  But that there were people living then who whose abilities to think through complex human issues were as powerful as anyone alive today. 

But I've got lots of other things to do and this talk is tomorrow evening, so I'll just send this on for people who might wish to gain some perspective on our current ethical debates. 

Here's the official announcement: 

Confucius Institute invites you and your family to join our next academic Lecture, to be held in the UAA/APU Consortium Library, Lewis E. Haines Meeting Room, Room 307, on Wednesday, March 18, from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.

 

“Facing Human Vulnerability in a Dangerous World: 

Two Chinese Responses.”

 

This lecture will address Mengzi’s (and perhaps Xunzi’s) defense of ritual as an appropriate response to human desires and aspirations, given our nature and the nature of the world as a whole; and then turn to Zhuangzi’s criticism of received ritual forms, in favor of a more radical acceptance of unstoppable change.  

Our speaker Dr. Aaron Stalnaker is a distinguished scholar and philosopher. He is an associate professor of Religious Studies, Philosophy, and East Asian Languages and Cultures at Indiana University. He is a core faculty member in the Department of Religious Studies, serves as the Dean of Graduate Studies, and has made tremendous contribution to the Department of Religious Studies in building its strong academics. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Stanford, and obtained his PhD from Brown. He is an expert in ethics and philosophy of religion, giving serious attention to both Chinese and Western theories and practices.

He is the author of Overcoming Our Evil: Human Nature and Spiritual Exercises in Xunzi and Augustine (Georgetown University Press, 2006), a comparative study of different models of moral and religious personal formation. He recently co-edited Religious Ethics in a Time of Globalism: Shaping a Third Wave of Comparative Analysis (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). He has lectured at many leading universities, including Harvard Divinity School, Princeton University, University of Michigan, Georgetown University, etc.

And for those who want to do a little homework first, here's an excerpt from a review of Stalnaker's book Overcoming Our Evil:

Having made these points about Stalnaker's interpretation and analysis of Xunzi's theory of self-transformation, let me turn to a lingering concern about the overarching goal of comparative analyses. Stalnaker makes a very strong case for needing forms of spiritual exercises to accomplish self-transformation toward better, moral forms of life. Furthermore, he, like I, wants to be able to retrieve some of these practices for contemporary purposes, to be used to transform lives today. Yet our desire to retrieve these spiritual exercises must confront the problem of whether or not they can be divorced from their conceptual and cultural context and still remain effective practices for self-transformation. Stalnaker believes it may be possible to retrieve some practices once we untangle the complex web of relations between the context and the practices themselves, the kind of work he undertakes in this book. 

 I picked this paragraph because it raises questions about the extent to which the ancient Chinese practices are applicable, as I suggested above.  

Events like this are just one of the many benefits of having a good university in our city. 

These Guys Are Looking For A Ride If You're Headed North From LA Along The Coast

As I passed these guys on my bike ride yesterday, I thought they made an interesting picture and probably had some good stories, so when I passed them again on my way back I stopped and asked if I could take their picture.  Shaun looked at me for a bit and finally said, tentatively, "For a dollar?"

I know journalists aren't supposed to pay for their stories, but I have trouble separating out my objective journalist self from my human being self.  No, that's not quite right.  I think I do that reasonably well.  My problem is with the idea that when I'm being a journalist, I have to stop being a human being.   They looked like they could use a lot more than a dollar, and so I said, "Sure."  I'd like to think that the human being gave them, actually, a dollar each and two for the dog, Nikolai,  and the journalist reported the story.  I know that won't cut it for 'real' journalists, but at least I'm being transparent about it and you can decide whether anything was compromised.  And the picture itself (above) didn't come out too well.  So here's one I photoshopped together using images from the video (below).

Skillet (the guy with the guitar) hails from Florida.  Crae (in the middle) is originally from Utah, and Shaun is from Northern California.  They've all been traveling around the country.  It took them two or three days to walk from Hollywood to Venice Beach.  But the guy they were looking for wasn't there.  They heard he was up the beach to the north so they were walking their way, hoping he was still there.  It was four miles from the border between Venice Beach and Santa Monica.  The weather was great - in the mid 70s - with a strong north wind in their faces. 

It wasn't quite the opportunity to get too deep into their lives and what this wandering around is like, but they clearly weren't going first class, but they seemed to be enjoying themselves.  I asked about hitching and they said it was bad in town, but going up the coast it was the way to go.  When I asked if it was ok to blog about them, they thought that was a good idea and might help them get a ride.  I didn't have the heart to tell them I'm an Alaskan blogger, but people in LA do drop by now and then.  When I said I thought it was harder to hitch today than when I was their age, they said everyone said the same thing.

When I asked Skillet about his guitar (on the video) he showed me it needs strings and a little repair work and asked if anyone watching could help, he'd sure appreciate it.  I have Shaun's email address if anyone can help Skillet with the guitar.

Here's the video.  I tried to get Shaun so the wind wouldn't be blowing into the mic on my camera.  I was moderately successful with Shaun, but not with the others.  I used iMovie's background sound reduction, but it's still pretty bad.  Sorry.

If I saw them on the side of the road, I'd certainly hesitate about picking them up.  But having talked to them, they're just three young men on an adventure.  If I had room in the car, I'd certainly stop and take them up along the road. 

I did check on the spelling of their names, so I think I've got that right, but I didn't ask about how to spell the dog's name.  Maybe they haven't ever written it down, and so maybe it doesn't matter.

Hummel Story Makes LA Times Leads Me To Thoughts About Online News Issues

The headline, "Alaska - Woman named to lead Guard," probably explains the interest.  It follows up with discussion of the sexual abuse scandal.  (I wrote about Hummel's appointment yesterday.)

The article itself exemplifies one of the issues I've been having over online news (including ethics of updating blog posts).  In this case, the online stories and the print stories don't match.
Here's the link to the online LA Times Story.

The first two paragraphs are the same, but the print story capitalizes Department of Veterans and Military Affairs while the online version doesn't.  Maybe I noticed that because capitalization is one of my problems here.

The two seem to be the same until the end of the paragraph that starts "In September . . ." and ends " . . .confidentiality had been breached."

The online version adds that she was a professor at West Point and doesn't mention that she's a Democrat.  Neither mentioned her PhD in geography.

The print version ends abruptly:

"Hummel graduated from West Point in 1982 and served 30 years of active duty.
A Democrat, Hummel ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the state House of Representatives in November."

I find the last sentence interesting because I suspect that a lot of folks will say, "Another unsuccessful politician gets a helped by the party into a cushy job."  But that would be a very wrong conclusion.  First, party stuff is all mixed up in Alaska now that we have an 'independent' former Republican governor teamed up with a Democratic Lt. governor.  But much more than that.

This is a story I know better than most stories.  I met Hummel right after the 80% Republican Redistricting Board rejected her and two other candidates for their Executive Director position - a non-partisan position for which she was exceedingly well qualified.   I talked to Hummel shortly after that - I was so impressed by how she handled herself that I contacted her because I just wanted to meet this well qualified and well-spoken woman.  We kept in contact while she was recruited by the Democrats to run for the state house in her district.  She laughed at them at first, but as she met some of the other Democratic legislators in Anchorage who came to persuade her, she was impressed with them.  They appealed to her sense of duty and public service and she finally agreed. (Really, I know this sounds like a pr piece, but that's really what happened.)   She'd never been involved in a political campaign and was particularly displeased about the having to ask people for money.  But she put herself totally into it and lost to an incumbent by 2l3 votes, less than 1% of the vote.

Is this a cushy job for Hummel?  It's one she's excited about and also a little anxious about.  She's never been in the National Guard and there's a lot of stuff to do.  She also doesn't believe the Adjutant General should be head of the National Guard AND the state head of veteran and military affairs. Because it's a military job, she has to forego her military pension and disability* payment.  Even more problematic is that her husband, who works in the Army National Guard in Alaska, has to resign his position.  But, she told me, he insisted this was an opportunity she couldn't pass up.

But let's get on to other questions, questions I ask myself as I blog, both as a blogger and as a user of online news.  Some differences between online and print and how I feel about them:

1. An online piece can be longer than a print piece so you can include more than you would print.  Print stories should say if there is more online, and some do.   It would be nice if the online story content that was in addition to or different from the print story, were a different color or otherwise marked.  I suspect most print media don't keep such close track of those things and would claim it would be a big burden.
2. You can update an online piece.  You can only print a later correction in print.  I think it makes sense to update and correct only stories, but those changes that are substantive should be marked.  I do that here.  Otherwise, unless someone saves each version or finds a different version cached, there's no way to know whether a story you read - say three months later - is the same story that was there in the beginning.  This has all sorts of Orwellian possibilities.
3. Typos that have no consequence to the meaning should be fixed when spotted and don't need to be marked.  Minor word changes that clarify but don't change the meaning also don't need to be marked, but this hangs on people's interpretation of 'minor' and 'change the meaning.'

I decide it would be prudent to check what professional journalists have to say on this.  There was an article in the April 2014  American Journalism Review about a draft Code of Ethics from the Society for Professional Journalist coming out in September 2014:

The code draft acknowledges a different environment for news by advising journalists to “Aggressively gather and update information as a story unfolds and work to avoid error. Deliberate distortion and reporting unconfirmed rumors are never permissible.”

Well, that agrees with me about updating, but doesn't mention identifying the updates.  Should the story be dated as of the latest update or the original story?  This will matter later when people look back to see when something was known.  And in the competition between news companies, who gets the credit for being the first to report?  

I'd note that I tried to contact Soumya Karlamangla, the reporter on the LA Times Hummel piece.  I originally wanted to ask her questions about the differences between the online and print versions and who makes those decisions.  As I looked at other stories she's written, I was wondering how she got this story.  There was an AP story and and ADN story.  It's unlikely she was writing this as an original piece.  But there is no source identified and it's not labeled an AP story.  What is it that she did to what she found online that changes it from a wire story to one that deserves her own byline?  (I couldn't find an email address for her but I did tweet her.  But didn't hear anything back.  I'm not clear about whether a tweet to her is public or not.  When I saw it in my list of tweets much later, I took it down.  There are too many protocols on too many systems for me to keep up.  OK, I looked it up, only folks who subscribe to both me and Karlamangla would get it in their timelines.  There's a table online that tells you who can see different kinds of tweets.  Here's the relevant information from that table to my question.  It would be publicly visible on my timeline.

click to enlarge and focus

Back to the American Journalism Review article mentioned above that talked about updating online articles.  I went to the Society of Professional Journalists website to see what their revised code looked like and if it had that language.  I couldn't find any language that specifically addressed updating online articles.  Here are the four main principles.  Each then has a list of standards of practice under it.  You can get the Code as a pdf here.

• SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT INGJournalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.Journalists should: 
• MINIMIZE HARMEthical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.Journalists should:
• 􏰀 ACT INDEPENDENTLYJournalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.Journalists should:
• 􏰀BE ACCOUNTABLEJournalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should:  

Doesn't really address my questions.  

*I asked Hummel during the campaign about what her disability entailed.  On the one hand, it's none of my business, but I suspected that some voters would wonder how she could hold the job of legislator if she was disabled.  Her response was that it was not a payment because you were so disabled you couldn't work, but rather compensation for injuries caused by your service in the military.    She was at West Point ages 18-22 and then in the military until she was 51.  She said hers were mainly orthopedic; "running too many miles with a heavy rucksack and jumping out of too many airplanes."  There is a very specific protocol for doctors to determine the injury and the percent of disability for each injury.  You can see how they calculate it precisely here.