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.