If 2015 was the year that the Michigan legislature decided to flip the bird to democracy, then 2016 is shaping up to be the year they double down on that decision.
We've already seen them overturn the vote of the people on emergency management and straight-ticket voting, but all that looks like child's play compared to the mess that is Senate Bill 571.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons on the last night of the House's 2015 session, was initially only twelve pages and wasn't yet the crushing blow to campaign finance reform it would become by the end of that last session. By the end of the night, the now 53-page bill would include provisions that essentially amounted to a gag order on local officials in regards to ballot proposals for the two months before an election, the doubling of the amount of money PAC's are allowed to donate to political campaigns, and the ability to keep independent expenditures secret until after elections.
Who says this legislature can't get things done when they want to?
First, there's the amendment that would forbid local officials from discussing any ballot proposal within 60 days of an election. Its proponents claim this would prevent taxpayer funds from being spent on propaganda. Never mind that there are already laws on the books that prevent taxpayer money from being spent on propaganda of that sort. Seems a little redundant and more than a little unconstitutional, as the scope of the bill would appear to heavily infringe on the free speech rights of public employees, including teachers, librarians and the like.
Even more sinister, however, is the provision that effectively doubles the maximum allowed amount of political donations a PAC can make to a campaign, by allowing campaigns to accept twice the current amount and apply it retroactively to expenses occurred from a prior campaign. While this has been nearly an entirely Republican supported effort, the scenario described above looks an awful lot like the one that occurred with former Democratic State Senator Andy Dillon, as Brian Dickerson over at the Freep points out. In fact, this bill makes it legal to do exactly what Dillon would eventually be fined for. For what it's worth, Dillon eventually ended up with a position in Snyder's administration, and his then-legal counsel, Eric Doster, is believed to have authored parts of SB 571. Coincidence? Doubtful.
What's somehow even more troubling than the fact that Rick Snyder and the legislature just signed over our state to dark money interests, however, is the number of representatives that had no idea what they were even voting on, which ultimately allowed this travesty to occur. In that same Freep article, Dickerson quotes Rep. Dave Pagel, one of the useless stooges that voted for the bill: "It's troubling when you take a vote and later realize you were ignorant of some facts you should have known." Even Sen. Mike Kowall, the original sponsor of the bill, claimed not to know what was in it, not that it stopped him from voting for the amended bill when it came back to the Senate.
Ignorant is an understatement. Completely negligent in your duty as a representative seems more fitting.
And if that's indeed the case, all but three House Republicans, all but three Senate Republicans, and Democratic turncoat, spousal abuser, and all-around scumbag Virgil Smith, have been completely negligent in their duties. The House Reps who voted no were John Bizon, Ed McBroom, and Paul Muxlow; the Senate Reps who voted against were Rick Jones and Tory Rocca, while the Senator for my district, Mike Green, didn't vote at all. (Our Senator before the most recent gerrymandering, Phil Pavlov, predictably voted yes.)
How is it even possible that one whose job it is to write and pass bills into law, can be allowed to vote on said bills when they haven't read the bills they're voting on? The phrase "we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it" comes to mind, and while it makes as little sense today as it did when first uttered by Nancy Pelosi, it seems to be standard operating procedure in Lansing.
Naturally, once many of them realized just what they'd sent to Snyder's desk, they fell over themselves trying to distance themselves from it, including, inexplicably, the very representative who introduced the amendments to the bill in the first place. Confused yet? You're not the only one. House Speaker Kevin Cotter and Senate Majority Leader Arlen Meekhof were both quick to deny any claims that any legislator who voted for this bill didn't know exactly what they were getting into, while the aforementioned Rep. Lyons said there might be a need for a "follow-up" bill to clarify the original, though one has to question why there should be a need for that when you're the one that submitted the part of the bill that caused the issue in the first place.
Truthfully, I'm not sure what's more mind-boggling in all of this: The legislators that didn't read the bill they voted for, the ones that knew what was in it and voted for it anyway, or the ones who knew what was in it, voted for it, then claimed they didn't know what was in it!
How can this sort of thing be prevented? Some have suggested limiting the length of any bill submitted for a vote, some want a one issue-per-bill limit, others propose a comprehension test on the content of the bills. Personally, your humble correspondent would like to see these bills presented to the public in their final form before any vote is taken on them, for a sufficient amount of time (say, 24-48 hours) so as to allow both lawmakers and their constituents to read and comprehend what they're voting on, and to allow the represented to make their opinions known to their representatives accordingly.
Is it logistically possible? Perhaps not.
Is it better than the current state of perpetual plausible deniability in Lansing? Absolutely.
Would any of these proposals ever see the light of day? As long as there are still elected officials whose self-interest doesn't include reading legislation until after it's been passed, the answer to that question remains a resounding no.
Of course, as always, that last part is easily remedied. Because while the Michigan legislature can overturn the will of the people all day long with their votes, they have yet to find a way to legislate themselves back into office after being voted out.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Thursday, January 7, 2016
The World's Worst PR Guy, Part 2
At long last, the "truth" starts to come out.
As some of you might remember, last month I wrote about John Pavlish, the reputation management hack hired by Cindy Gamrat to clear her good name (I use that term loosely) and smear everybody else's, making more than a few vague threats along the way. Since late November, he's been threatening to release a report, whose length seems to change by the day (first it was 400 pages, then 500, then 600, then 400 again), that will exonerate the adulterers and destroy her enemies, colleagues, constituents, etc.
Finally, after months and months of alleged investigation, and weeks of threatening to send drones to spy on the critics of his clients, sections of Pavlish's report are finally starting to leak onto his Facebook page. The whole report that was supposed to be released almost a month ago? Well, it still hasn't been. Apparently, Pavlish has decided we're not smart enough to comprehend the entire report, so he's going to release bits and pieces of it via his firm's Facebook page. Seems an odd way to do business, but I suppose that's why he does what he does and why I call him out on it.
The first piece he posted was a takedown of Gamrat's original attorney, Andrew Abood. You may remember him as the guy that accused Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood of being the actual phantom texter, as the actual texter, David Horr, had allegedly registered the phone under his name. The first half of this post is tearing down the alleged awards Abood claims to have in his field, because even when dealing with somebody who legitimately is as hopelessly incompetent at their job as Abood is, Pavlish can't help but add a few meaningless digs aside of the actual substance. From there, the subject turns to Abood's hired investigator, who found that Horr registered the phone as "C. Livingood," but not that it was Horr who bought the phone, or anything that might have been of actual use. He, of course, ran to the media to trumpet his findings, which amounted to less than nothing. It may be shooting fish in a barrel, but it's the first thing Pavlish has posted publicly about the case that's pretty much spot-on, though he seems far more concerned about how Abood's actions hurt the adulterer than the guy who was falsely accused by her lawyer of blackmail.
It becomes clear in Pavlish's next post why that is, as the aforementioned Livengood is the subject of his next piece. It starts off with Pavlish stating that the claim that Gamrat and Courer lied and stole from the taxpayers is "untrue" and "unsubstantiated," despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Next, a few quotes Livengood made on various radio and TV programs around the state. The parts taken from Pavlish's piece are in italics.
Chad Livengood appeared on "Michigan’s Big Show" with Michael Patrick Shiels on the morning of August 7th 2015 and stated this:
“a and um and this audio tape um which the the employee recorded because he had a a at the time sorta feared of uh that Courser was volatile in some way um wha confirms a lot of things that people didn’t a a had no idea was even even not might uh might uh that Representative Courser um might not be able to"
And now for the part Chad Livengood said that I truly can’t understand:
CHAD LIVENGOOD: "There were some events here um that suggest uh that maybe a misuse of taxpayer resources um a in, in an a that to keep this thing going."
All I'm really getting from this is that Chad Livengood's worst journalistic sin is not being a great public speaker. (Seriously, was it really necessary to leave every single "um" or "ah" in the quotes?)
How is Chad Livengood even suggesting that there is a possibility Ms. Gamrat and Mr. Courser used taxpayer resources to conceal a relationship? Where is the proof that this is significant right now? If Chad Livengood had proof to make this accusation, where is it?
Well, the House Business Office report explicitly stated there was misuse of taxpayer resources, so there's that. And it would be significant as it's exactly the basis for throwing these two out of office.
SEEK THE TRUTH AND REPORT IT
1) Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
2) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
3) Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
4) Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
5) Verify information before releasing it.
6) Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
7) Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
8) Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
Well, there weren't any anonymous sources used; the staffers recorded the conversation and sent it to Livengood, and there's never been any question about that, so most of the above doesn't apply. And it's kind of hard to distort the words of the man himself when the audio is out there in public. So, nothing here violates any of the standards set forth. Next...
Chad Livengood and the Detroit News waged a vicious negative media blitz via their printed and online newspaper. They also relentlessly attacked Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser via social media.
"Attacked"= tweeted articles reporting on the situation, and Finley's editorials regarding it. Not sure how that constitutes a "relentless attack" yet the PR guy threatening to spy on people's families isn't, but what do I know.
Please see more of the SPJ code of ethics below listed in their 'MINIMIZE HARM" section
MINIMIZE HARM
Did Chad Livengood follow the SPJ rules of Ethics under their section MINIMIZE HARM when he started his false narrative and then started ruthless attacking Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser daily via negative articles and daily social media posts? See Information below taken from" The SPJ Code of Ethics"
"Ruthless attacking." You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as HUMAN BEINGS deserving of respect.
1) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
2) Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
3) Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
4) Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,
Courser knew exactly what he was getting himself into; he's nothing if not attention-seeking and self-promoting, so it's hard to feel sorry for the guy. Gamrat wasn't as much in the public eye as Courser pre-election, at least not on this side of the state, but to portray her as an innocent victim is a bit patronizing and, quite frankly, more than a bit sexist. Neither are "juveniles, victims of sex crimes," or "inexperienced or unable to give consent." They're both grown adults whose actions have hurt others.
We didn't list his colleagues' negative articles and their social media posts, such as the Detroit News editor/columnist Nolan Finley stating and tweeting this:
"Detroit News Editor Nolan Finley had harsh words for State Rep. Cindy Gamrat after her investigative team appeared to try and implicate Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood( complete nonsense) as the possible blackmailer of State Rep. Todd Courser.
Gamrat; Cheat, hypocrite and now a liar. https://t.co/t9dFMCXXgm
— Nolan Finley (@NolanFinleyDN) August 27, 2015
What Pavlish is assuming you won't click through to, however, is a tweet from right-wing political blogger Brandon Hall that links to a MIRS story about Gamrat and Abood accusing Livengood of being the phantom texter, which, as we've already established, is not the case. So it would appear that Finley is right on the mark here: Gamrat is indeed a liar, cheat, and thief. Let it be noted, by the way, that Finley is the editorial page editor at the DetNews, and that his job is, in fact, to opine. Expressing his opinion is kind of a pretty big part of the job, so the claim that he's unethical because he expresses his opinion is beyond absurd.
The second half of this piece, which Pavlish refers to as Livengood's "non-stop attack," is a collection of tweets sent out by Livengood, which largely consists of links to the articles he's written about the scandal; various quotes from House Speaker Kevin Cotter, Courser himself, and Gamrat's attorneys; and sections quoted from the House Business Office's report on the matter. How, exactly, is his quoting of the actual report "unethical"? Hard to say, as Pavlish never clarifies the issue. Truthfully, most of this section of Pavlish's piece is a bit hard to decipher, as he basically copied and pasted four days' worth of tweets to a single Facebook status, with no spacing to separate individual tweets, nor indicate who is actually speaking in various retweets. If your eyes aren't already sore from rolling back in your head after reading Pavlish's own thoughts, they will be from his awful formatting of the thoughts of others.
Ultimately, there were no earth-shattering revelations here, other than Gamrat's attorney is criminally incompetent, Chad Livengood is unethical because he quotes people and facts, and John Pavlish could really stand to take his own advice on ethics.
Despite the consultant's best (?) attempts, nothing in Livengood's reporting was proven to be false. Because unfortunately for Pavlish, repeatedly calling something false doesn't make it so without proof. And there's none to be found.
If this is the best he's got, he may as well not waste the 400 pages.
As some of you might remember, last month I wrote about John Pavlish, the reputation management hack hired by Cindy Gamrat to clear her good name (I use that term loosely) and smear everybody else's, making more than a few vague threats along the way. Since late November, he's been threatening to release a report, whose length seems to change by the day (first it was 400 pages, then 500, then 600, then 400 again), that will exonerate the adulterers and destroy her enemies, colleagues, constituents, etc.
Finally, after months and months of alleged investigation, and weeks of threatening to send drones to spy on the critics of his clients, sections of Pavlish's report are finally starting to leak onto his Facebook page. The whole report that was supposed to be released almost a month ago? Well, it still hasn't been. Apparently, Pavlish has decided we're not smart enough to comprehend the entire report, so he's going to release bits and pieces of it via his firm's Facebook page. Seems an odd way to do business, but I suppose that's why he does what he does and why I call him out on it.
The first piece he posted was a takedown of Gamrat's original attorney, Andrew Abood. You may remember him as the guy that accused Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood of being the actual phantom texter, as the actual texter, David Horr, had allegedly registered the phone under his name. The first half of this post is tearing down the alleged awards Abood claims to have in his field, because even when dealing with somebody who legitimately is as hopelessly incompetent at their job as Abood is, Pavlish can't help but add a few meaningless digs aside of the actual substance. From there, the subject turns to Abood's hired investigator, who found that Horr registered the phone as "C. Livingood," but not that it was Horr who bought the phone, or anything that might have been of actual use. He, of course, ran to the media to trumpet his findings, which amounted to less than nothing. It may be shooting fish in a barrel, but it's the first thing Pavlish has posted publicly about the case that's pretty much spot-on, though he seems far more concerned about how Abood's actions hurt the adulterer than the guy who was falsely accused by her lawyer of blackmail.
It becomes clear in Pavlish's next post why that is, as the aforementioned Livengood is the subject of his next piece. It starts off with Pavlish stating that the claim that Gamrat and Courer lied and stole from the taxpayers is "untrue" and "unsubstantiated," despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. Next, a few quotes Livengood made on various radio and TV programs around the state. The parts taken from Pavlish's piece are in italics.
Chad Livengood appeared on "Michigan’s Big Show" with Michael Patrick Shiels on the morning of August 7th 2015 and stated this:
“a and um and this audio tape um which the the employee recorded because he had a a at the time sorta feared of uh that Courser was volatile in some way um wha confirms a lot of things that people didn’t a a had no idea was even even not might uh might uh that Representative Courser um might not be able to"
And now for the part Chad Livengood said that I truly can’t understand:
CHAD LIVENGOOD: "There were some events here um that suggest uh that maybe a misuse of taxpayer resources um a in, in an a that to keep this thing going."
All I'm really getting from this is that Chad Livengood's worst journalistic sin is not being a great public speaker. (Seriously, was it really necessary to leave every single "um" or "ah" in the quotes?)
How is Chad Livengood even suggesting that there is a possibility Ms. Gamrat and Mr. Courser used taxpayer resources to conceal a relationship? Where is the proof that this is significant right now? If Chad Livengood had proof to make this accusation, where is it?
Well, the House Business Office report explicitly stated there was misuse of taxpayer resources, so there's that. And it would be significant as it's exactly the basis for throwing these two out of office.
SEEK THE TRUTH AND REPORT IT
1) Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
2) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
3) Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
4) Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
5) Verify information before releasing it.
6) Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
7) Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
8) Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity.
Well, there weren't any anonymous sources used; the staffers recorded the conversation and sent it to Livengood, and there's never been any question about that, so most of the above doesn't apply. And it's kind of hard to distort the words of the man himself when the audio is out there in public. So, nothing here violates any of the standards set forth. Next...
Chad Livengood and the Detroit News waged a vicious negative media blitz via their printed and online newspaper. They also relentlessly attacked Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser via social media.
"Attacked"= tweeted articles reporting on the situation, and Finley's editorials regarding it. Not sure how that constitutes a "relentless attack" yet the PR guy threatening to spy on people's families isn't, but what do I know.
Please see more of the SPJ code of ethics below listed in their 'MINIMIZE HARM" section
MINIMIZE HARM
Did Chad Livengood follow the SPJ rules of Ethics under their section MINIMIZE HARM when he started his false narrative and then started ruthless attacking Cindy Gamrat and Todd Courser daily via negative articles and daily social media posts? See Information below taken from" The SPJ Code of Ethics"
"Ruthless attacking." You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as HUMAN BEINGS deserving of respect.
1) Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
2) Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
3) Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
4) Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity,
Courser knew exactly what he was getting himself into; he's nothing if not attention-seeking and self-promoting, so it's hard to feel sorry for the guy. Gamrat wasn't as much in the public eye as Courser pre-election, at least not on this side of the state, but to portray her as an innocent victim is a bit patronizing and, quite frankly, more than a bit sexist. Neither are "juveniles, victims of sex crimes," or "inexperienced or unable to give consent." They're both grown adults whose actions have hurt others.
We didn't list his colleagues' negative articles and their social media posts, such as the Detroit News editor/columnist Nolan Finley stating and tweeting this:
"Detroit News Editor Nolan Finley had harsh words for State Rep. Cindy Gamrat after her investigative team appeared to try and implicate Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood( complete nonsense) as the possible blackmailer of State Rep. Todd Courser.
Gamrat; Cheat, hypocrite and now a liar. https://t.co/t9dFMCXXgm
— Nolan Finley (@NolanFinleyDN) August 27, 2015
What Pavlish is assuming you won't click through to, however, is a tweet from right-wing political blogger Brandon Hall that links to a MIRS story about Gamrat and Abood accusing Livengood of being the phantom texter, which, as we've already established, is not the case. So it would appear that Finley is right on the mark here: Gamrat is indeed a liar, cheat, and thief. Let it be noted, by the way, that Finley is the editorial page editor at the DetNews, and that his job is, in fact, to opine. Expressing his opinion is kind of a pretty big part of the job, so the claim that he's unethical because he expresses his opinion is beyond absurd.
The second half of this piece, which Pavlish refers to as Livengood's "non-stop attack," is a collection of tweets sent out by Livengood, which largely consists of links to the articles he's written about the scandal; various quotes from House Speaker Kevin Cotter, Courser himself, and Gamrat's attorneys; and sections quoted from the House Business Office's report on the matter. How, exactly, is his quoting of the actual report "unethical"? Hard to say, as Pavlish never clarifies the issue. Truthfully, most of this section of Pavlish's piece is a bit hard to decipher, as he basically copied and pasted four days' worth of tweets to a single Facebook status, with no spacing to separate individual tweets, nor indicate who is actually speaking in various retweets. If your eyes aren't already sore from rolling back in your head after reading Pavlish's own thoughts, they will be from his awful formatting of the thoughts of others.
Ultimately, there were no earth-shattering revelations here, other than Gamrat's attorney is criminally incompetent, Chad Livengood is unethical because he quotes people and facts, and John Pavlish could really stand to take his own advice on ethics.
Despite the consultant's best (?) attempts, nothing in Livengood's reporting was proven to be false. Because unfortunately for Pavlish, repeatedly calling something false doesn't make it so without proof. And there's none to be found.
If this is the best he's got, he may as well not waste the 400 pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)