98 Days

April 8, 2014 is Equal Pay Day.

That's how far into the year a woman will work for free compared on average to the wage of her male colleague - 98 days.

Earlier this month the AAUW released its annual statistics on the gender pay gap. Guess what?

It's still there.

Even though Congress passed The Equal Pay Act of 1963 -- 51 years ago -- women continue on average to earn less money working the same jobs as men.

In the 1960's the rate of inequality was recorded closer to 64%, but now it hasn't budged in a decade: The March 10, 2014 report shows that in 2012 women on average still only earn 77% of what their male equivalents earn, the same as it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

But I don't see this as a gender problem.

I see it as a societal one that with better tools we can resolve together.

In real numbers: if a man earns $35,000 a year and the woman next to him doing the same job only earns 77% of that, it means $27,000 a year for the woman - which factors out to be $600 less per month or $150 less per week. Or if she went to work every week from January 1 to April 8 without receiving any pay at all.

Or worked every Monday all year long for free. And some Tuesdays.

Men - if you knew that the competent woman next to you was being paid 23% less to do the same job, would you want to fix that?

My hope is your answer is, 'yes' because if it's 'no' then we have a much bigger problem.

A key here to the correction is wage transparency. We can't talk about what we don't know. We won't fix what we can't see.

Working women and men should never be under the threat of reprisal for sharing their salaries with each other.

Enter Lilly Ledbetter. From the National Women's Law Center:

"Lilly Ledbetter was one of the few female supervisors at the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama, and worked there for close to two decades. She faced sexual harassment at the plant and was told by her boss that he didn’t think a woman should be working there. Her co-workers bragged about their overtime pay, but Goodyear did not allow its employees to discuss their pay, and Ms. Ledbetter did not know she was the subject of discrimination until she received an anonymous note revealing the (significantly higher) salaries of three of the male managers.
After she filed a complaint with the EEOC, her case went to trial, and the jury awarded her back-pay and approximately $3.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the extreme nature of the pay discrimination to which she had been subjected."

Within months of the Lilly Ledbetter decision, in 2009 Congress passed the Fair Pay Act that gives employees some ability to challenge discriminatory compensation practices.

But having worked recently for a company with sketchy wage awards, I can tell you The Fair Pay Act does not go far enough.

After one woman in the company accidentally learned she fell into the wage gap, she attempted to renegotiate her salary with her boss. For more than six months she tried to convince him to pay her more, only to hit brick wall after brick wall.

Due to a clause in the employee handbook preventing open discussion about pay, she could not divulge to her boss that she knew she was being paid significantly less than her male counterpart. 

Further, she and her male colleague never had an honest conversation about why or how it happened. Only the boss knew why, yet he refused to acknowledge the situation. After all, she wasn't supposed to know there was a gap - and risked losing her job if she said she let on that she knew.

She contemplated filing an equal pay discrimination action with the EEOC. She learned from former employees of other suspicious hiring and preferential pay practices. The problem was, all of it could be explained as something other than gender bias or discrimination.

Was her substandard pay rate gender related?

Would her male colleague have stepped up to help rectify the situation if he had known?

As the advantaged benefactor would he even have perceived it as unfair?

What if the question of pay could have been an open one within the office?

Would that have changed anything?

What would you have done?

In this case we'll never know. Fearing retribution in an industry where she still worked, and without an emotional or financial safety net, she dropped her pursuit for the truth, got another job and moved on with her life.

It will only be after we can start talking openly with each other without fear of losing our jobs that we stand a better chance of shedding enough light on this 5,000-year-old problem to even begin trying to fix it.

While the solutions are not yet clear, doing something quiet is better than doing nothing.

As metaphor for the red ink women are drowning in, wear red April 8.

Sign this New York State Senator's Equal Pay for Women petition: http://www.nysenate.gov/webform/join-equal-pay-women-campaign-11

Talk about your pay. 

Even if you have to whisper.

The best obtainable version of the truth

     Investigative journalism reached a pinnacle with the stories about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters written by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published in The Washington Post on June 18, 1972.

     Over the course the next months the reporters revealed a tangled tale rife with political corruption, dirty ‘hush money’, blind ambition, protected sources, and their work resulted in the unraveling of the top echelon of the United States government.

     Through the hard work of investigative journalism, the ‘Watergate Caper’, as Walter Cronkite called it on the CBS Evening News, was etched into history and eventually led to the resignation of a sitting president, Richard Nixon.

     
     On the 40^th anniversary of that monumental publishing event, another Post writer, Leonard Downie Jr., penned an opinion piece about the current state of investigative journalism and how Watergate shaped its evolution. “Woodward and Bernstein’s techniques were hardly original," Downie wrote. "But, propagated by “All the President’s Men,” they became central to the ethos of investigative reporting: Become an expert on your subject. Knock on doors to talk to sources in person. Protect the confidentiality of sources when necessary. Never rely on a single source. Find documents. Follow the money. Pile one hard-won detail on top of another until a pattern becomes discernible.”

     After seven years of declining revenue, in an effort to maintain the integrity of their newspaper, this week The Graham family agreed to sell The Washington Post to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.

     Most newspapers do not have the resources, money, or time that The Post has to spend on important investigative news. Yet they are sometimes able to get the job done. So, is it resources that really drive important stories? As a daily news reporter, the silent stories that remained in my files on the day I walked away still irritate my conscience.

     On that small scale, investigative reporters like The Patriot-News’s Sarah Ganim – who dogged the legal system for more than 18 months to bring the name Jerry Sandusky, a serial pedophile, to the forefront. If she had not gone to court, followed postponed hearing after hearing, and finally published the Grand Jury indictment, would Penn State have been able to bury the scandal? The answer is yes – because they had already done so for many years.

     Ganim won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism for her work.

     Last week Sandusky was denied a new trial after being convicted in June 2012 on 45 counts of sexually abusing 10 boys.

     Bernstein, in this April 24, 2012 interview, talks about the state of mainstream media today and the continued responsibility of investigative journalists. In discussing the shift in responsibility to stockholders, in a popular culture which values celebrity, Bernstein sees degradation of information and thereby society.

“Newspapers are not willing, increasingly, to devote those resources to that kind of reporting. … When you don’t have dominant journalistic institutions whose standards really prevail and influence the standards of other journalistic institutions … when you have a culture in which hard, complex truth is no longer the coin of the realm, or is devalued, … when we determine that Marla Maples is bigger news than Nelson Mandela … that is a triumph of idiot culture.”

     Maybe the pairing of the largest booksellers with one of the best newspapers published holds some hope for the future of investigative journalism.

If you can't say something nice ...

Taking college classes online has become an important part of getting a degree. A 2011 survey by Babson College revealed at that six million people, “nearly one-third of all students in higher education are taking at least one online course.”

That’s a lot of people. And a lot of money. But that’s not what I want to talk about today. What I am really concerned with is the quality of learning achieved through the online platform.

First, let me say I am biased because I believe in education. I believe a person who is able to think at a higher level has an obligation to expand their knowledge to its greatest possible potential. 

Why? Because not everyone thinks at the same level as everyone else. A simple example: Albert Einstein. What if he just decided to stick with the patent office job? He could have, and no one would have noticed. But he didn’t. He pushed himself and for that the world learned a new way to understand time and space. 

See what I mean? Not everyone could, but he did, and we all benefit.

Now, not everyone can be self-taught like Einstein. Still, some of us want to expand our knowledge to a greater degree. Skilled craftsmen along with institutions of higher education make this possible. Teachers, professors and skilled masters have the power to convey understanding and knowledge so an individual can become more than most would be on their own. University is where I would learn about logic, reasoning, how to use my mind to its greatest capacity and learn critical thinking.

OK, that’s the set up. Now here’s the rant: from my experience, online learning is a farce. One of the key skills you are supposed to learn and hone in college - critical thinking and the ability to thoughtfully debate a point - is completely missing from most of the online classes I have taken (and passed.)

One component of online learning is the message board. It is the place where ideas should be shared and discussed. In my psychology class the professor posts weekly questions and each student must post three responses during the week. Last week he asked, “Which do you believe is the most important sense? Do you believe in subliminal perception and/or extra sensory perception?  If someone came to you and said, I have ghosts in my house, what would you think?”

By midweek, the “discussion” devolved into a surreal chat session about why my classmates believe in ghosts. Not one shred of evidence was ever introduced, only statements like, “I do believe in ghosts. I have heard many stories of them. I used to work in a nursing home the night shift, and you could actually hear conversations but when you go to where you hear the voices nothing there and my patients were sound asleep,” and “If someone came to me and said, they have ghosts in their house, I would probably think that they do. I have experienced the presence of a ghost. I hear things, see things and find my jewelry in spots other than in my jewelry box. I have seen orbs in photos that I have taken.”

It went on like that for more than four days and the professor did not interject once. As a matter of fact, six weeks into the course and there was not one redirect, reinforcement or reprimand from him at all.

Now, I wouldn't be nearly as torqued as I am, except in the next “discussion” it started again. The question went to sleep disorders. It’s amazing how many people claim to have narcolepsy – it seems at least three of my classmates do. I was still a little disheartened by the previous week’s campfire ghost tales, so I (gently!) asked them to share some details about their diagnosis.

Meanwhile, when I pointed out to two of my fellow classmates that commercial websites in the business of sleep disorders might be biased and I would be skeptical of their information THAT is when the professor decided it was time to intervene.

My post:

Hi S…,Thank you for the interesting link to The Sleep Foundation website. One problem I have with using it as a source is found on its 'about us' page:"Funding Sources and Editorial IndependenceThe National Sleep Foundation furthers its mission by supporting public education, sleep-related research and advocacy. The NSF is supported by a number of sources, including individual donors, memberships, sales of educational materials, advertising, investment income and grants.”When advertising is listed as a funding source it makes me a bit skeptical of the content.
~reb

Here is the professor’s response – in the public discussion forum – directly to me personally:

“Hi (Reb),One of the processes we incorporate in this class is listing source material. As always whether we agree or disagree based on sponsoring organizations is a moot point. The goal here is not to pick apart a post so much as counter your answer with facts that support your viewpoint. Skepticism is truly a good thing, but we also need to be supportive of our classmates' use of source material.One way of supporting you (sic) colleagues here is to offer a diffrent (sic) viewpoint rather than criticze (sic) her/his source material.We can always find some other material to contradict another person's viewpoint. Or instead of laying out your skepticism, you could offer a different website in support of your colleague's post. This is a learning environment that requires personal insight and the use of diferent (sic) resources that can be better utilized through finding supporting data or finding data that doesn't support the post's viewpoint.We are all skeptics, its (sic) backing skepticism with facts which leads to a more proactive interaction. I do offer this as a suggestion to assist all of our interactions with our classmates.Professor …”

Ugh. 

So basically, it’s my job to find a way to make a ridiculous and unfounded point of view right? 

How about some ‘agreeance’ that my post was a good one, or are we only supposed to agree with the absolutely absurd and uninformed popular opinion? 

Ugh. 

In a traditional classroom, at least in my mind, this whole discussion would have been a very different one. Arrggghhh. 

Ugh.

Next time maybe I should just post that my ghosts have narcolepsy.

Gold ticket and a shower

Dear blue-ticket holders who didn’t get in to see President Barack Obama speak last week,

What is wrong with your self-esteem? I don’t mean your politics. I mean the idolatry of politicians has to stop.

That’s what I want to talk about today.

You’re right. Having any president, sitting or former, stop by to use a local community venue as his bully pulpit is an honor. Obama's message last week to increase opportunities for college bound students was important.

But to those of you who were there hoping for a glimpse or the opportunity to shake his hand I would like to address something about his stop in Central New York that has me a little bit concerned: the way his staff treated the people outside and the reverence you have for him because he is the president.

Please, don’t get me wrong. I firmly hold that any sitting president deserves the respect of every United States citizen. He was elected to serve us all, even if we did not cast a winning ballot. Likewise, all of our elected officials work for us and deserve our respect for their willingness to hold public office. But they must return that respect for We the People. And we do not owe each other awe or veneration.

According to local news reports, when the tickets to attend Obama’s remarks were meted out, some of you, the blue-ticket holders, queued overnight on Monday Aug. 20, just for a chance to get a ticket. 

You blue-ticket holders waited again for several hours on Thursday Aug. 22, just for the opportunity to get inside the high school auditorium. And when the skies opened up with a typical late-summer rain and its torrents drenched the people outside, not one of them had an umbrella. 

The sacred pass forbade them from carrying one. 

And then it was you, the wet, tired blue-ticket holders who were turned away at the door when the seats were filled.

Meanwhile, the elite red tickets were handed out in offices across the region to other politicians, local officials, and high ranking community members. A red ticket allowed its holder to pass through a shorter ‘express’ line where it has been reported in social media that bottled water and granola bars were served.

My questions here for you, the blue-ticket holders, is this: would you treat anyone in your life the way you were treated? And, why would you let your government - which is supposed to be working for you – treat you this way?

The Syracuse Post Standard reported that among those turned away was Susan Fahey Glisson, the president of Parents for Public Schools. You would think that she would be an important person to have in the room during a discussion about education. Where was her red ticket?

In a report the following day, reporter Tim Knauss, wrote:

“Glisson got all dressed up, as did most of the people who went, including lots of young children, she said. For an hour, they all stood in the rain while the line did not move, Glisson said. The metal detectors could not be deployed in the rain. Then came word from inside the school: Nobody else would be allowed in.

“Glisson's shoes -- bone leather pumps -- were ruined, she said this afternoon. Her iPhone no longer worked, despite sitting for a day in a cup of rice to remove the water. … Glisson said she believes Obama would be concerned if he knew how badly some of his fans in Syracuse had been disappointed.”

Wait, what? Fans? As in, an enthusiastic devotee, follower and admirer of the famous?

Ugh.

Obama’s staffers owe each of you blue-ticket outcasts an apology for making you wait in line all night, not arranging to have adequate shelter when their ticket asked you to leave your umbrellas home and for not telling you that the auditorium was overbooked as soon as they knew.

The president owes you an apology for being so isolated that his staff felt they could treat you all this way. He also owes you the gratification of knowing what ramifications they suffered for treating We the People so badly. Because he is a lame-duck, your vote no longer has any power over him.

Meanwhile, you should have checked the weather before you left home, worn something drip-dry, the old veneer pumps and put your iPhone in a plastic bag. 

Best always,

Reb

'Feel good?' Criminals applying conscience selectively does not restore my faith in humanity

A sexual assault services office in San Bernardino County was burglarized July 31, causing thousands of dollars in damage and with thousands of dollars in office equipment stolen.

According to this ABC News story, “Inside, (the center’s director) said, the building’s telephone wires had been cut, its Internet connection was down and six computer towers, a laptop, speakers for the laptop, children’s story books and 100 bags of small candy had been stolen.”

Hours after the break-in the center’s director found a shopping cart outside the building containing the stolen items.

Now legions of news reporters - from NPR and Huffington Post to The Christian Post and FOX News are telling me this story is supposed to restore my faith in humanity due to the following note left inside one of the stolen laptops:

“We HAD

NO IDEA

what we were

takeing. Here

your stuff Back

we hope that

you guys can

continue to make

A DiffeRerence

in peoples Live

GOD Bless.”

Sorry folks, it ain't workin' for me. I get no warm fuzzies here.

What would restore my faith in humanity?

• If the burglar(s) had taken the note, the stolen items and him or her self(s) to the local police department and offered to do whatever necessary to make reparations for the damage caused, regardless of the type of services offered by the agency. Or even just turned themselves in to the agency.
• If these savvy burglar(s) – smart enough to break in through a utility area and not get electrocuted – enrolled in a local literacy program and worked toward learning how to read and write.
• If they hadn't closed with "God Bless." Really? A group of people dedicated to helping victims of sexual assault have now been blessed by the criminals who've taken resources away from the victims (in cost of repairing the damage to property and sense of security) and made their jobs that much harder?
• If there was no need for rape crisis centers.
• Or, even if any of the news agencies that reproduced the note in the text of their articles had done so accurately.
• How about if he/she/they didn't break into the office to begin with? That would have worked.

Criminals don't get a bye, especially not when their conscience is plaguing them. It means they knew that what they were doing was wrong in the first place.

Something's wrong, captain

Saturday August 10, 2013 update: 

Officials in the town of Deer Trail were split in a 3-3 vote Tuesday on a law that would allow drone hunting within its borders. The matter will now go to a public vote, according to this
Amanda Kost, ABC7 News update.

And:

On July 25, Sara Morrison of The Wrap reported that three producers at KTVU in Oakland were fired over a racist error announced live during a newscast about the Asiana crash landing that left three dead.

"Reached by TheWrap via email, investigative projects producer Roland De Wolk wrote : "My hard-earned reputation is intack (sic). There are lawyers, so eager as I am to anser (sic) all questions, I must refrain."

TheWrap presumes the spelling errors were unintentional."

I think that The Wrap is being far too kind to Mr. DeWolk.

The other producers named in Morrison's article are Brad Belstock and Cristina Gastelu. Although, as of this writing, Gastelu still lists KTVU as her employer.

You can read Morrison's article here:

Fired KTVU Producer in Asiana Gaffe: 'My Hard-Earned Reputation is Intack' 

_ _ _
Original blog post July 20:

There were two things in TV news this week that coursed through the Internets’s series of tubes and caught my attention: one was the removal of the heart of a story about government spying, the other was a brainless (and racist) error. Both stories involved careless reporting.

That’s what I want to talk about today.

Heartless spin

The mayor of the town of Deer Trail, Colo., is trying to send an important message about government surveillance of Americans by drafting a measure to allow bounty hunting of unmanned drones in the town's airspace. With recent revelations provided by whistle-blower Ed Snowden about the National Security Agency and its questionable tactics collecting information and spying on Americans, this is an important conversation the country needs to remain engaged in until we have come to a constitutional resolution.

Or not.

In the online version of her story, in an interview with the town’s mayor, ABC7NEWS Reporter Amanda Kost said she asked the town official if he had ever seen a drone flying over.

"No," Mayor Phillip Steel responded. "This is a very symbolic ordinance. Basically, I do not believe in the idea of a surveillance society, and I believe we are heading that way."

Unfortunately, that quote never made the on-air news cast. 

Instead, the story became a silly fluff piece focused on the kind of money that could be made during a “drone days” festival, the sale of licenses and the fact that you can’t actually shoot down a drone with a shotgun.

If I were Steel I would have felt like my heart was ripped out.

It’s no wonder people are afraid to talk with reporters about anything important and that they take delight in the errors that supposedly trained journalists make - sometimes even provoking them.

Holy Fook

When an airplane crashes and people are killed, maimed and injured it is hard news and newsrooms across the country and around the world are rightfully compelled to report such occurrences. The ‘media’ has the responsibility of being the source of public record.

While each story is different and there is no protocol for covering tragic breaking news, from this former daily newspaper reporter’s perspective, covering developing news was the same each time: get to the scene; collect personal observations; talk to eyewitnesses and experts; source and fact check everything; then inform the public.

Asiana Flight 214, where three teen-aged girls lost their lives and dozens of people were injured, was that kind of tragic breaking news.

But days after the deadly crash, in a frenzy of trying to continue to be first on air with more ‘breaking news’ (despite that it was several days after) San Francisco television station KTVU ‘presenter’ Tori Campbell read the names of four people the news station claimed to be pilots of the plane. Because the preliminary cause of the crash pointed to pilot error (although I do not know the origin of this information), it was certainly relevant to the story.

After Campbell read the names aloud, “Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi To Lo, Ho Lee (Fook) and Bang Ding Ow,” she added, “We are working to see what role each of them played.”

{Here Reb gently rests face in palm.}

Really? Maybe that would have been a good thing to do before taking this on air.

The news station offered an immediate, tepid and unapologetic apology and then later a formal written one that blamed an unnamed National Transportation Safety Board summer intern as the source who confirmed the bad information.

So it’s OK that no one on the staff seemed to notice what the copy actually SAID regardless of the source? OK to just blame the source and not acknowledge the producer’s and anchor’s actions are unacceptable? Were they all unpaid summer interns?

Couldn't she hear herself speaking?

Was the crew even listening?

Despite being a tactless, racist prank, many people found it to be hilariously funny. (OK, if you are now lost, I urge you to go back and re-read the pilots names in order, a little faster, or watch the video if it’s still available …) 

The television agency has not yet explained publicly who was responsible. It is my belief that the news station’s errors compel disclosure as a matter of public record.

I will try to fix you

Maybe we can get KTVU’s Tori Campbell to host the ABC7News coverage of Drone Days.

Or maybe it’s time to raise the bar folks.

We’re too low.

Bang, ding, ow.

My first e-published book

Available for 99 cents at Amazon.com ... click here now.