Press Releases: It's an online world now

Published in the Portland Phoenix

The Portland Press Herald editorial crew needs some lessons on online communication and Internet copyright law. This is clear in the wake of a recent dustup the paper had with a woman who took a photo in October 2010, posted it on Flickr way back then, and was very surprised to find at the top of the PPH's front page, and prominently online, on August 7.

The picture was the crux of a Press Herald story covering part of the ongoing revelations about Reverend Bob Carlson, who killed himself in November 2011 when allegations began surfacing that he sexually abused minors. In this development of the matter, which is being covered exhaustively in other media, former Husson University president William Beardsley (now the state's conservation commissioner) confronted Carlson in 2006 about an allegation of some sort of sexual misconduct. The reverend resigned from his post as campus chaplain; Beardsley claims he told Carlson not to return to campus. The photo is evidence that Carlson did visit campus for official events after that conversation.

Having learned of the photo's existence on Flickr, the paper downloaded the photo from the online site to run in print and online, describing the photo as taken by "the former administrative assistant to Rodney Larson, dean of the School of Pharmacy."

It appears, then, the PPH knew the identity of the person behind the camera. And the photo was clearly marked on Flickr as "© All Rights Reserved" But the paper never contacted that person, despite the contact-the-photographer button Flickr provides on every page.

The post-publication exchange with the shooter in question, Audrey Slade, raises questions about the paper's understanding of good online conduct.

She wrote twice to PPH brass, asking them to take the photo down. On August 9, managing editor Steve Greenlee wrote back, claiming the paper "could not, by deadline, determine who the photo belonged to" and saying the paper determined it could use the photo in part because it was "on a public site (Flickr), available for anyone to view, with no obvious indication of ownership." Greenlee also claimed "there was no contact information for the account holder on the Flickr page."

In a blog post about the situation, Slade wondered about the ethics of basing an entire article on her photos, and all but identifying her, without contacting her, either for comment or for permission. She noted Flickr's message button, and added, "perhaps since they were able to see my name attached to my flickr page, they could have googled me, thus finding . . . my email address." She also noted that her job title was nowhere to be found on Flickr, so the paper clearly had additional information about her identity.

The paper answered with a post of its own, admitting the reporter "neglected to click the message button on Flickr." (That button is how I reached Slade to speak to her about this situation.)

After admitting sin by omission, the paper then gave three reasons it published the photo without contacting her and without credit: "The photo was viewable by the public with no privacy settings. The image was central to a story of great public interest. Naming the photographer without her permission would have pulled her into a controversy unnecessarily."

The second one is true, and the only excuse of the three that's even reasonable. The third reason might hold water if the article hadn't all but named her. As for the first, the Press Herald's own photos are "viewable by the public with no privacy settings" — but we can be sure the PPH would send its lawyers after anyone who used them without permission or credit.

The paper later took the photo down and told Slade it would pay her $300. She wrote back, saying it had been four days, and therefore $400 was in order — as well as a public apology. She's gotten a check for the full amount, but she's still waiting on the apology.

Community Building: Mosque welcomes visitors

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Don't believe what you read or hear in the news about Muslims. "Instead of taking it from the media, it's better to take it from people who are educated in the religion," said imam Mohamed Ibrahim, speaking in Somali and using a translator, at an iftar gathering Monday night at the Maine Muslim Community Center in Portland.

Attending were not just the community center's regular congregants, but community members, neighborhood residents, and city officials (whose ranking member was Police Chief Mike Sauschuck).

The iftar breaks the fast that observant Muslims keep between sunup and sundown during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (when the Quran was first revealed to the Prophet Mohammed). The community center, which includes a mosque, has been in its location at the corner of Fox and Anderson streets since 2007; it was in May 2011 that the members were able to buy the building, and renovations finished last August. So the gathering marked an anniversary of sorts — as well as an opportunity for further engagement between the Muslim community and the wider population of Portland.

Recalling the support the group found when, shortly after the building was purchased, it was defaced with graffiti in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden by American troops, board president Mohamud Mohamed said the center wants to welcome neighbors all the time, not just in crises. "We don't need the people only the difficulty day," he said.

The solution, he proposed, was one laid out in a proverb he translated as: "The animal they understand each other when they sniff each other. The people understand each other when they talk together."

The gratitude to those who attended from among the Muslim leaders was palpable — and oft-repeated in remarks from several of them — and the welcome was genuine, filled with smiles and excellent food. (A surprise: lasagna, which entered Somali cuisine through Italian colonizers.)

But there was an element of defensiveness as well. While inviting attendees to return, and noting that any community members who are interested may visit at any time, Imam Ibrahim cautioned against believing stereotypes and fear-mongering. "Islam is a religion of peace," he said.

This was perhaps most vividly represented when, partway through the meal, the muezzin's call resounded through the building, and worshipers stood up from their plates or came in from outside. Lining up on the carpet, facing the mihrab (the niche in the wall indicating the direction of Mecca), roughly 70 men and boys (women pray separately) bowed and knelt, pressing their foreheads to the ground while whispering prayers.

This weekend will see the observance of Eid al-Fitr, the really big feast and community gathering marking the end of Ramadan; the exact timing depends on when the crescent moon is first sighted here in Portland, and the location of the observance is still being determined because of scheduling conflicts at the Portland Expo, where celebrations have been held in the past.

Press Releases: Avoiding the issues

Published in the Portland Phoenix

Governor Paul LePage's "Gestapo" mess has largely subsided, but ripples remain — among them key insights into the squeamishness of Maine journalists, and the information thereby denied to the people of the Pine Tree State.

By now, we've all heard that the guv's July 7 radio address equated the IRS with the Nazis' secret police. He got thrown under the bus by his own press aide for personally changing his scripted radio address, failed to apologize by expressing regret for others' offense (rather than for his own misstep), repeated and embellished the comparison when approached by a Vermont reporter, and then ultimately issued an actual apology in his July 14 radio address — as well as, we're told, private ones to members of Maine's Jewish community.

The first remarkable thing was the conduct of the reporter, Paul Heintz of the Burlington alt-weekly Seven Days. When LePage said the IRS was "heading in the direction" of becoming an agency dealing death (during a July 12 fundraiser for a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Vermont), Heintz asked the question so many of us here in Maine — LePage fans and haters alike — wanted to ask: "Are you serious?" (LePage was, and kept digging his hole deeper.)

Maine reporters aren't really known for asking uppity questions of this — or any — governor. It's not just a LePage thing, though the guv has regularly bullied journalists to a degree unheard of in prior administrations. We all remember his campaign-trail threat to punch a reporter in the face, and telling another her question was "bullshit." But reporters are generally known for standing up to bullies — even at risk of their own lives. Not here.

And of course LePage's communications staff shields him from the press pretty completely. Can you think of the last time LePage held a press conference with questions from the media — or even a public question-and-answer session where his staff didn't filter the inquiries? And his performance on transparency is abysmal — he and top administration officials don't even take notes in meetings any more, concerned that those documents would be available to the world under public-records laws.

But then again, LePage appears at all kinds of public events, announced in advance by press releases from his office, no doubt hoping for positive coverage highlighting whatever it is that he's doing. If Maine's reporters really wanted an answer from the governor, they know how to find him, on schedule and in person.

The second remarkable thing was the fruit that reporter's questioning bore for a public interested to know what their governor thinks on key issues of the day.

As was revealed under Heintz's questioning, the Gestapo comparison is clear evidence of LePage's deep misunderstanding of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Sure, LePage knew what the Gestapo did ("they killed a lot of people"), but more to the point, he thought the IRS was going to end up doing something similar by somehow forcing health-care "rationing" on Americans. (Side note: He appears either to approve or be unaware of the rationing we now experience, in favor of the rich.)

Heintz's interview broke the news that LePage subscribes to a much-discredited right-wing claim that failure to comply with the ACA's requirement to get insurance or pay a fine could land a person in jail — though the ACA itself expressly prohibits any criminal penalty.

If you add that to LePage's previously reported belief, shared by only a select few Republican governors elsewhere, that the Supreme Court's ACA ruling allows him to throw tens of thousands of Mainers off MaineCare, we begin to see a picture of the width and depth of the policy confusion experienced by His Excellency the Governor of Maine.

That's the kind of insight into our governor's thinking local audiences expect from our own media. Sadly, we're more successful seeking it in sources from away.

ACA ruling proves Roberts #SCOTUS most politicized in history

Published at thePhoenix.com

The Roberts Court is — it can now be said most confidently — the most political in American history. Today’s surprising — to almost everyone — upholding of the Affordable Care Act is proof that it’s even more politicized than we thought.

If the decision had gone the way most people expected — with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. siding with the majority to overturn large portions of ACA (or the whole thing entirely), Democrats and Republicans would have (rightly) viewed the Roberts Court as an arm of the Republican Party’s ultra-conservative wing.

The Court’s standing in public opinion, and the respect for the institution across America, would have collapsed. Its impotence might have echoed the darkest days of the Marshall Court, when President Andrew Jackson apocryphally said of the 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” (That’s not actually what Jackson said, but it’s close.)

Roberts is a scholar of Court history, and knows well the perilous ground on which he treads. So in a startling move that landed him far to the political left of Justice Anthony Kennedy (who uncharacteristically took up an absolutist right-wing opinion), Roberts moved to save his Court — and his reputation — from certain denigration with the epithet “politicized.”

Unfortunately, the nature of his decision — because it was based not on Constitutional scholarship nor case law nor even the arguments in the case before the Court — was political, and most cravenly so. He ruled on a major issue of law and principle for reasons of reputational and political ends.

So in seeking to protect the Court from allegations that it was overly political, Roberts has in fact confirmed what he sought to disprove.

Press Releases: Back to the polls

Published in the Portland Phoenix

The debate about how to phrase the same-sex marriage question on November's ballot has just begun, with Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers proposing a very simple option: "Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

Of course opponents have objected, saying those words don't say anything about the societal catastrophe they are sure will follow its passage. But more oddly — and, it turns out, potentially against their self-interest — supporters of same-sex marriage also want the question revised. Specifically, according to Mainers United for Marriage leader Matt McTighe, they want it to ask: "Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?"

The polling to date suggests Summers's version of the question is (perhaps unintentionally, given his open opposition) better for marriage proponents. In March, Public Policy Polling asked, "In general, do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?" Results were 54 percent in favor, 41 opposed, and 5 percent unsure (with a 2.8-percent margin of error). In April the Maine People's Resource Center asked people's opinion on "allowing same-sex couples to be legally married in Maine" and found 58 percent for, and 40 percent against (with an error margin of 3.1 percent).

The March PPP poll also asked the question McTighe's way, and found less support (as well as less opposition and more undecideds): 47 percent for, 32 percent against, and 21 percent not sure. The WBUR poll earlier this month also asked McTighe's question, and also found support weaker than Summers's more straightforward version: 55 percent in favor, 36 opposed, and 9 percent declining to answer (with a margin of error there of 4.4 percent).

So advocates appear, at the moment, to be requesting a ballot wording that gives them less support, in hopes that the lower opposition and greater undecided pool will allow them to prevail over the religious opposition. Maine media, so far, have treated the two questions — in poll terms, at least — as functionally the same. They're not. McTighe knows it, Summers knows it, and most importantly, the people facing the questions know it — that's why they answered differently to the different questions. Sadly, it's journalists who appear last to find out.

Maine political writers are also overlooking a major flaw in the WBUR poll (which has gotten criticism for other reasons, but not this one): Andrew Ian Dodge isn't one of the options. In a different question, pollsters asked: in the Senate election, "if the candidates were Independent Angus King, Republican Charlie Summers, or Democrat Cynthia Dill, for whom would you vote?"

The name order was rotated in the actual questioning. But Dodge should have been there. He's the Tea Party-backed candidate who dropped out of the Republican Party to run as an independent, and was first into the race, setting up to challenge Olympia Snowe before she announced her retirement.

While he's widely believed to have little chance of winning, the Tea Party vote is least likely to migrate to any of the other three, and shows an element of the Maine electorate that — whether you agree with it or not — holds sway in some areas.

By the way, the WBUR poll also neglected two other independents: Steve Woods, who has already capitulated to King, and Danny Dalton, only recently located for an interview with the Associated Press — his official address on file with the Maine Secretary of State's office is a Mail It 4U store in Bath.

Their absence was technically incorrect — their names will appear on the November ballot — but had negligible effect on the survey, as they will in the election itself.