I Can't Imagine

I've watched off and on as admitted cop killer Jamie Hood represents himself in his trial (livestream available here, when court is in session). Right now, Hood is cross examining a police officer and it hit me -- I cannot imagine what it's like to be cross examined by the guy who admits he shot to death a fellow officer. It must be very hard for these folks, but so far the one or two I've seen have been very professional on the stand.

Painful To Watch

If you live in the Athens, Ga., area, you can't help but know admitted cop-killer Jamie Hood is on trial and he's representing himself. It's a circus. I'm watching it via streaming and Hood made an objection and the judge, clearly already tired and it's not even lunchtime, excused the jury so they could argue a minor point about a witness list. The witness was on the list, but Hood thought it wasn't. But it was. In alphabetical order. Sigh.

If you're interested, the trial is available via streaming here.

As a former reporter, I've covered a lot of trials. Lemme just point out that's it's sausage making at its worst. Not a bit like what you see in the movies or on TV. Slow, ponderous, legalistic (as you'd expect), and a challenge if you're a reporter to stay focused for key moments. I've already heard a couple today in the opening statements, stuff I'd quote in a story.

Having a defendant represent himself is, truly, a circus.

Economists Look at Fox

Rarely would I read something published in the Journal of Public Economics. Just not my thing. But the June 2015 issue includes a study of political knowledge and Fox News. Maybe you can see the study, maybe not. I see it because I'm on my office computer and academic journals recognize the IP, thus granting me me complete access. Your mileage may differ.

First, a few key points about the study:

• It didn't cite me, and I've published a couple of things on Fox and political knowledge. We all agree that's an academic death sentence.
• The reference list is odd, if you happen to be steeped in research in political knowledge and, especially, media effects. By odd, I mean limited. Parochial. Narrow. Hell, it cites The Hollywood Reporter. There are a few solid political science cites, so that's something.
• Like most economic papers, it attempts to baffle you with methodological bullshit. A lot of analyses are tossed your way. That said, this study cobbles together some interesting data far beyond the usual collection of national surveys, though at its heart it does rely on the Annenberg surveys for its political knowledge questions. Still, some sophisticated stuff here.

What's the takeaway? Fox matters, and not in surprising ways. Watching Fox has Republican effects. This is comforting in that it's nice to know not just masscomm dares research the obvious. Also: "This evidence generally suggests that Fox News influenced knowledge in a partisan way." Again, lots of studies have shown this (not cited here, unfortunately).

I suppose it doesn't exist until an economist finds it.

UGA Police PR

I saw this below at the bottom of a recent UGA cop story in the local paper:

UGA police were unable to comment due to a university policy change this year that directs questions concerning all police matters to the Office of Public Affairs.

and it got me wondering, huh? When did this happen? I found it especially interesting as the University of Alabama student paper had written last semester a story praising how UGA journalists could speak directly to the cops instead of going through the university PR office, which slows everything up. Ironic, eh? So of course I asked. Below is the email response I just received from Tom Jackson, VP (for a while, not sure when his new gig starts) of Public Affairs at UGA:

To answer your question -- in early April an institutional decision was made to assign a public affairs officer for the police department. This was done because Chief Williamson was handling media inquiries directly, and was being swamped with media inquiries, multiple inquires per day.  Public Affairs already handles media inquiries for much of the university and we’re in the same building with the police department.  Most of the information requested from police by media is readily available in the original incident reports and does not necessitate a phone call to the police chief.  If those reports do not supply sufficient information, further inquiries may be directed to Bob Taylor in my office, who will attempt to get any further releasable information for the reporter.  This is what public affairs offices do, and it will free Jimmy for more time to do what he is supposed to be doing, and that is directing the police department.

So there ya have it. Oh, I asked if there were any memos or reports justifying or explaining the decision, but was told there "are no responsive documents" to my request.The difference above to how Bama appears to do it is UGA seems to have someone devoted specifically to cop stuff. Whether that slows down getting news out there quickly -- vital on cop stories -- remains to be seen. As a former cop reporter myself, the last thing you want is another layer of bureaucracy, especially on public safety stories. I'll give it this Fall Semester to see how it works.

UGA and Google Trends

So, playing with Google Trends, I decided to check out University of Georgia as a search term. You can see a graphic display below.

As you can see, it's gone down. Don't feel too bad, UGA folks, I looked at University of Florida as a search term and it shows the same trend.

What's fun, if you go to the live graphic linked above, is to see when interest in UGA bumped up. Needless to say, most of those bumps are September -- which can be a football effect, or a starting school effect. Or both. The ones with letters, those are based on news events and stories that no doubt generated some traffic as well. "G," for example, is when former UGA prez Michael Adams called for a football playoff system. "E" is when a nationally known faculty member died.

Huh?

And so I'm reading a story about UGA cops busting a gambling operation on campus and at the end of the story I see this graf

UGA police were unable to comment due to a university policy change this year that directs questions concerning all police matters to the Office of Public Affairs.

and I think, what the fuck?

I think this because, ironically, I'd recently seen a story by the Alabama student newspaper praising UGA and how the UGA cops could speak directly to journalists instead of, like at Bama, going through the PR wing of the university -- which drastically slows up the news process plus, let's face it, puts a flak spin on everything.

I'm actually gonna ask about this policy and when (and why) it went into effect. Will report back if and when I get an actual response.

Judge Softens Gag Order, Still Doesn't Get It

Turns out the judge in the Athens-Clarke cop-killer has eased the gag order he issued earlier that caused all kinds of excitement, attention -- and valid criticism.

After all, the order was clearly unconstitutional, something you'd expect a judge to kinda get because, ya know, law school. At the bottom you'll see the graphs from the original OnlineAthens story that was ordered taken down by the judge. Yes, I'll run 'em, because that's what I do.

The judge, H. Patrick Haggard (pic above), still doesn't get it. According to the latest Athens Banner-Herald/OnlineAthens story:

The amended order he issued Wednesday restricts only the publication of information that could identify potential jurors, responses made by potential jurors during the selection process, and issues raised by the prosecution and defense which “may relate to juror responses.”

Sorry, that's still prior restraint. If potential jurors are saying it in a public courtroom, it's in the public domain and definitely in the public interest. Period.

The judge may have avoided the embarrassment of being told by another court to straighten up and fly constitutionally right. Maybe. It depends on whether the ABH is willing to spent the bucks challenging the existing, eased gag order. In fairness to the judge, his interest is less on the First Amendment and more on the Sixth Amendment and ensuring a fair trial for an admitted cop killer. That said, the law is fairly straightforward here, and he's on the wrong side. I get his concern, he's just overreached. And to be honest, Elbert County was a crappy choice for jurors in the first place. A year ago I wrote this and even recommended Hall County as a better choice, given the demographics, plus years ago an infamous local trial was moved there in a change of venue, that of the Five Points Rapist. Sigh, no one listens to me.

By the way, where are the other local or Atlanta media in this fight? Eh? Get in the ballgame, folks.

Section That Pissed Off Judge

The DA’s motion further states, “The court is aware of the massive amount of media exposure and the fixed opinions of potential jurors who have directly heard statements by (Hood) admitting to acts that infer (his) guilt, read newspaper articles that state (Hood) made admissions of killing a police officer or heard the same information by word of mouth in the community.

In the selection process that began June 1, 47 people were qualified out of a field of 126 as potentially suited to serve on the jury.

“Of the 47 jurors that were kept 77% stated that they were familiar with the facts of the case and of (Hood) and 15% gave the opinion that (Hood) was guilty when asked by (Hood),” Mauldin states in his motion. “However the actual percentage may be higher than the figure given as (Hood) did not ask all 47 jurors who were qualified if they thought he was guilty.”

Earlier posts by me on this here and here. Worth your time, if you haven't already read them. OK, maybe not. Humor me.

Paper Will Challenge Gag Order

Judge H. Patrick Haggard

The Athens Banner-Herald will challenge a local judge's gag order involving jury selection of a cop-killer trial. The order is clearly unconstitutional, not that local judges know all that much about First Amendment law. In fairness, he's just trying to wrangle a fair trial for an admitted cop killer, but this is exactly how not to do it. He ordered the paper to remove from online a story that gave details on the very public process, based on a very public record.

And if you want to know the part of the original online story that pissed off the judge, yes I'll give that to you. I posted it yesterday on my blog, but in case you missed it, here's a cached version of the story (because this is what I do) and below are the grafs I suspect got the judge's attention. Read them yourself.

The DA’s motion further states, “The court is aware of the massive amount of media exposure and the fixed opinions of potential jurors who have directly heard statements by (Hood) admitting to acts that infer (his) guilt, read newspaper articles that state (Hood) made admissions of killing a police officer or heard the same information by word of mouth in the community.

In the selection process that began June 1, 47 people were qualified out of a field of 126 as potentially suited to serve on the jury.

“Of the 47 jurors that were kept 77% stated that they were familiar with the facts of the case and of (Hood) and 15% gave the opinion that (Hood) was guilty when asked by (Hood),” Mauldin states in his motion. “However the actual percentage may be higher than the figure given as (Hood) did not ask all 47 jurors who were qualified if they thought he was guilty.”

And I was happy to see my old friend Chuck Tobin quoted in the most recent story. He's called a "noted First Amendment attorney" which, while true, will only make him more difficult to be around. As Chuck said:

“The judge has done two things, said Tobin, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Holland & Knight and chairman of the firm’s National Media Practice Team. “First, he’s sealed off all public information about how jurors are selected, and second, it is a direct prior restraint on the press. It is strictly unconstitutional for a judge to tell reporters what they can and cannot print.”

Go, man, go.

I'll post updates if anything develops today. Also, of course, follow me on Twitter.





Update (1:50 p.m.)

Oh, and and about a year ago I wrote this about the choice of Elbert County as an alternative to Athens-Clarke. The ABH also questioned Elbert County as an alternative at the time.

Local Gag Order

Update at Bottom

There's a cop killer trial happening locally. Well, it's mired in jury selection at the moment, but an interesting angle came up as the judge issued a media gag order, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. In the latest story:

In an order filed Monday in Clarke County Superior Court, Judge H. Patrick Haggard forbids all media and all court officials connected with the case from publishing or disclosing “in any manner information that is related in any manner to the selection of jurors for (Hood’s) trial.”

The paper had put online a version of the story that included details from jurors, especially quotes that they believed the defendant did it and how he should be punished (yes, I read it before it was taken down). After posting the story:

A Clarke County sheriff’s deputy on Tuesday served the order to the publisher and a reporter with the Banner-Herald. The order was served hours after a story containing details of the jury selection process was posted by OnlineAthens.com.

OK, right off as a public service, here's a cached version of the story, though I'm not sure it's the complete version but it seems to be. Here's a chunk that probably pissed off the judge:

The DA’s motion further states, “The court is aware of the massive amount of media exposure and the fixed opinions of potential jurors who have directly heard statements by (Hood) admitting to acts that infer (his) guilt, read newspaper articles that state (Hood) made admissions of killing a police officer or heard the same information by word of mouth in the community.

In the selection process that began June 1, 47 people were qualified out of a field of 126 as potentially suited to serve on the jury.

“Of the 47 jurors that were kept 77% stated that they were familiar with the facts of the case and of (Hood) and 15% gave the opinion that (Hood) was guilty when asked by (Hood),” Mauldin states in his motion. “However the actual percentage may be higher than the figure given as (Hood) did not ask all 47 jurors who were qualified if they thought he was guilty.”

Let's get down to the real question here -- can a judge do this? Yeah. At least at first. Without going into too many journalistic dweeby details, a judge is required to find any possible alternative before issuing a gag order. You can find a detailed discussion here, and it's quite good. Judges should "rarely, if ever," prevent the press from reporting a public proceeding. Given the document in question about the potential jurors is not even sealed, that anyone can go and see it, suggests this judge would lose this if appealed. The only likely defense, and I'd need to ask someone much smarter about this stuff than I am, is the fair trial vs. free press question. In most cases, a fair trial wins -- but, the judge or court is obligated to find lots of ways to work around even this situation to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment.

I need to ask my old friend and that brilliant media lawyer, Chuck Tobin, just this very question. Will email him today and update any on-the-record opinion he offers.

UPDATE ( quote from media law guru Chuck Tobin):

The Constitution flatly forbids courts from directly restraining journalists, absent the highest national security type of interest and only with a mountain of evidence to support it. This order is a colossal First Amendment mistake. If the judge doesn't pull it back, I'm sure it will be quickly overturned on appeal.

That pretty much says it all.

More updates as the situation changes or a deputy knocks on my door with a nasty note from the judge because I put the obviously open public record available to the public. Last I looked, no changes at OnlineAthens.com and its story, but will keep an eye out for updates.

Income Inequality

Much has been made of late about income inequality, and rightly so. To get at this a bit better, I downloaded data from this site and cranked out a ranking of Georgia counties in terms of their income inequality. This is done by calculating the ratio between the 80th percentile income with the 20 percentile income. The higher the number, the more unequal the income distribution in each county.

And yes, the county where I live comes in at #1. We're #1, we're #1.

Below, the Top 5 counties and, in parentheses, the respective ratio scores. To explain, Clarke's 7.5 is a function of the 80th percentile salary ($76,474) divided by its 20th percentile salary ($10,231). That's 7.474734, for you math majors out there, so let's round it to 7.5.

1. Clarke (7.5)
2. Twiggs (6.9)
3. Bleckley (6.7)
4. (tie) Bulloch, Toombs, Baker (6.5)

So what are the counties with the lowest inequality? Chattahoochee, followed by Paulding, Barrow (near where I live), Henry, and Pike.

Frankly I'm a bit surprised by a few of the results. Take Greene County, for example, a place that has the ultra rich around Lake Oconee and a whole of folks who are, um, not rich. It's way down in the pack, at 27th. Or nearby Oconee County, it's only 117th.

What makes Athens-Clarke #1? Lousy poverty rate, of course, as well as some good salaries of folks who work at the University of Georgia, plus sometimes the salary info gets skewed via the Census when students are included in the data.

Below (I hope), every county ordered by rank.

County	Rank
Clarke	1
Twiggs	2
Bleckley	3
Bulloch	4
Toombs	5
Baker	6
Bacon	7
Tift	8
Baldwin	9
Fulton	10
Taylor	11
Laurens	12
Clinch	13
Calhoun	14
Turner	15
Dougherty	16
Thomas	17
Sumter	18
Schley	19
Burke	20
Crisp	21
Bibb	22
Warren	23
Telfair	24
Greene	25
Wheeler	26
Washington	27
Early	28
Dooly	29
Webster	30
Peach	31
Dodge	32
Treutlen	33
Atkinson	34
Johnson	35
Mitchell	36
Grady	37
Screven	38
Terrell	39
Decatur	40
Ben Hill	41
Hart	42
Ware	43
Troup	44
Hancock	45
Stewart	46
Tattnall	47
Rabun	48
Lanier	49
Wilkes	50
Talbot	51
Haralson	52
Jenkins	53
Lincoln	54
Miller	55
Wilcox	56
Richmond	57
McDuffie	58
Macon	59
Brooks	60
Seminole	61
Colquitt	62
Candler	63
Appling	64
Marion	65
Lowndes	66
Jefferson	67
Irwin	68
Spalding	69
Emanuel	70
Evans	71
Glynn	72
Montgomery	73
Lumpkin	74
Fannin	75
Muscogee	76
Franklin	77
DeKalb	78
Floyd	79
Chatham	80
Wayne	81
Charlton	82
Monroe	83
Berrien	84
Cook	85
Carroll	86
Heard	87
Coffee	88
Pulaski	89
Lamar	90
Crawford	91
Brantley	92
Walker	93
McIntosh	94
Cobb	95
Clay	96
Harris	97
Gordon	98
Union	99
Jeff Davis	100
Stephens	101
Murray	102
Glascock	103
Worth	104
Echols	105
Camden	106
Walton	107
Banks	108
Habersham	109
Morgan	110
Pierce	111
Jackson	112
Elbert	113
Randolph	114
Putnam	115
Polk	116
Oconee	117
Meriwether	118
Wilkinson	119
Jasper	120
Dawson	121
Dade	122
Upson	123
Whitfield	124
Taliaferro	125
Liberty	126
Hall	127
Bryan	128
White	129
Bartow	130
Jones	131
Towns	132
Houston	133
Chattooga	134
Pickens	135
Clayton	136
Catoosa	137
Oglethorpe	138
Madison	139
Newton	140
Lee	141
Fayette	142
Gwinnett	143
Gilmer	144
Forsyth	145
Cherokee	146
Coweta	147
Butts	148
Rockdale	149
Quitman	150
Long	151
Douglas	152
Effingham	153
Columbia	154
Pike	155
Henry	156
Barrow	157
Paulding	158
Chattahoochee	159

UGA Pay

So here's the hed from my local paper:

Morehead now among
highest-paid collegiate
presidents in U.S.

This is about Jere Morehead, UGA's fairly new prez. You'd see this hed and think, wow, he must be in the Top 10. But by my count, according to data here, he's in 92nd place. I dumped the data and did a rank sort. What the paper does do is kinda add new raise info, but that's not really fair unless you also check for raises among all the other university presidents on the list and calculate it again. Maybe all 91 before him also got raises. He's above the median, barely. Think about that. The median is the midpoint. That means he's probably in the, oh, 55th percentile, at best 60th. That's hardly "highest-paid."

The hed is wrong. The lede is better.

University of Georgia president Jere Morehead and two other Georgia university presidents are now among the highest paid public-college presidents in the United States, judging from a just released survey of college presidents’ pay.

That's more nuanced, as it focuses on public-college presidents. Even so, just a glance at that list will see lots and lots and lots of public college presidents ahead of poor President Morehead (who, by the way, is giving $100,000 of his raise to a scholarship at UGA.).

Yes, this kind of stuff bothers me. Even in summer.

Most Distrusted Name in News?

I was playing with a neat Pew graphic that breaks respondents into one of three generational categories: Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. For fun, use the "distrust" option, and then click on each generational group.

See the consistencies?

• Rush Limbaugh is the most distrusted of two of the three groups and is second in the other group.
• Fox News is #2 on those two groups above, but #1 among Millenials in distrust.
• Glenn Beck holds down #3 for all groups.
• OK, how about evil liberals? MSNBC is #4 in distrust among Baby Boomers and Generation X, but only #8 among Millenials.

So "conservative" outlets do poorly on distrust. But if you flip it, there's not a mirror image. For example, Fox News may be #2 in distrust among Baby Boomers but it's also, among the same group, #3 in trust. Keep in mind these rankings are mushy given the margins of error involved.

CNN does well, and certain news outlets must look at the Millenial numbers and think they'll be well positioned in coming years. Unfortunately (for them), trust is not the same as audience. Think about it. Fox News kicks CNN's ass in audience while at the same time doing much more poorly in trust/distrust. Being liked is not the same as being, well, watched or read. Some hate you, but some love you -- the essence of a partisan fragmentation.

Summer Slow

Just as an FYI, I will post rarely over the summer. My ones of readers worldwide will just have to satisfy their reading needs elsewhere. Sorry.

(having written this, we all know what'll happen ... a spurt of writing will fill the blog)