The Internet

Is Buzz Bissenger Right? Should College Football Be Banned? Is He KIDDING? Of Course It Should. And Everybody Knows It.

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Scholars all, I’m sure.

Not for the first time, sportswriter and commentator Buzz Bissinger has everybody buzzing about one of his frank opinion pieces, this one launched in the Wall Street Journal. His provocative title: “Why College Football Should Be Banned.”

Bissinger deserves credit for being willing to bite the hands that feed him: he is the author of “Friday Night Lights,” and many of Bissinger fans, at least up to now, tend to be football fans too. His article, however, is also one of those periodic slaps in the face of cultural apathy that occasionally causes a shift, as when Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a little novel that alerted a lot of people to the obvious fact that a system in which human beings were bought, sold, and bred like cattle might not be consistent with civilized morality. It doesn’t take a genius, a revolutionary or a careful analyst to conclude that big time college football is corrupt and corrupting to the core. It only takes a willingness to brush aside rationalizations and face the truth.

Here are the arguments Bissinger presents to support his thesis:

  1. Football has nothing to do with academics.
  2. It is a distraction from both the purpose of higher education and attention to the serious problems facing the university system.
  3. With college tuition reaching outrageous levels and the college loan system teetering, university expenditures on pricey football programs are unconscionable.
  4. The major beneficiaries from college football are the NFL, which uses it as its minor league system at minimal cost; pathetic alumni, who wrap their self-esteem up with the fortunes of their alma mater’s football fortunes; and obscenely-compensated football coaches.
  5. Football programs, contrary to what the public might think, often lose money and become a drag on tuition funds.
  6. Colleges like Maryland have cut other varsity sports (eight of them, in Maryland’s case) to allow it to pay for football.
  7. The representation that the athletes are students is largely a sham, with many of them failing to graduate and the majority spending minimal time on substantive course study.
  8. The athletes are exploited.
  9. The game entails serious health effects, primarily head trauma, that are only now being recognized.

I’m sure we can come up with a #10, too. Oh! I have one: Penn State. We were just given a front row seat to a frightening display of how even a “model” football program could warp the priorities and ethical values of an entire campus culture.

Of course Bissinger’s attack has college football supporters scrambling into a defense formation. What can they come up with? Not much, but it’s a fascinating study of how rationalizations rush into voids caused by the lack of substantive arguments. One college football-hyping blog’s first response was this: Continue reading →

Savage Nightmare: Into the Valley Of Spin, Deceit and Lies

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

When Perez Hilton is the MOST ethical participant in a chain of internet lies, spin and deceit, you know you’re in trouble.

The dishonesty in the world of blogs and partisan websites is so pervasive, the determination to deceive so great, and the willingness to distort, confuse and misinform so ingrained and shameless, that an objective understanding of some politically-charged events become literally—and I mean literally literally, and what Joe Biden means when he says literally, which is “figuratively”—impossible. Does this fuel the destructive partisanship that causes public discourse to be about “gotchas” and point scoring rather than collaboratively addressing societal problems? Absolutely.

I fell into this muck today when I made the mistake of visiting the Breitbart website for the first time in months, to see what it was evolving into now that Andrew has left us. Eureka! Here was a post by Ben Shapiro saluting Perez Hilton, the petty and reliably ethics-challenged gossip columnist (there is no such thing as an ethical gossip columnist) for breaking ranks and criticizing Dan Savage for his anti-Christian, abusive rant to high school journalists in what was supposed to be a speech about anti-bullying initiatives. This signaled to me that Hilton had an Ethics Hero designation in his immediate future, for properly chastising unethical conduct by an ally: like Savage, Hilton is gay and active in anti-bullying efforts.

Shapiro wrote:

“Hilton has long been an advocate of anti-bullying, and it is heroic of him to stand apart from the rest of the media, which has buried Savage’s bully tactics or brushed them off as unimportant. Savage, as Hilton points out, has lost his credibility as an anti-bullying advocate with such actions. And yes, Hilton has cut a video on behalf of the It Gets Better Project.

“It wasn’t any of the big time celebrities who have endorsed and supported Savage’s It Gets Better Project who stood up against him. It wasn’t folks like Jane Lynch or Neil Patrick Harris or Josh Duhamel or James Marsden or Janet Jackson or Jennifer Love Hewitt or any of the dozens of other stars who could have done so. It wasn’t the folks in the mainstream media, who have completely ignored the story, or justified Savage’s behavior. It wasn’t the elected leaders who have used government resources to direct traffic to Savage’s program who stood up to Savage’s bullying here. It wasn’t President Obama or Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack or the Department of Justice or the White House Staff or Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

“It was a gossip columnist.”

The Perez quote cited by Shapiro to justify this extravagant praise was this:

 “UGH ….Savage later called the walk-out “pansy-a**ed” which, from someone who helms an anti-bullying campaign, is obviously a very negative thing to say ….Can’t we just be good and kind to each other? Isn’t faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?” Continue reading →

Credit Ethics: New Ethics Alarms Policy

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The sound of my palm belatedly smacking my expansive forehead

What will heretofore be referred to as “The Mary Frances Prevost Affair” has its silver lining. Watching another blogger incorporate the main body of my blog post into her own by-lined essay without credit or attribution has caused me to do a lot of thinking about the inadequacy of credit and attribution in the blogosphere  generally, with a relatively  few exceptions. Most of these are blogs written by academics who hold to the standards of their profession rather than the much looser practices of the internet. It also caused me to wake up to the inadequacy of my own attribution practices on Ethics Alarms. I have never taken an entire post from another source and represented it as my own, but I have frequently taken a factual account of a story from another website that itself was essentially  republishing, for example, an AP story, put the facts in my own words, sometimes with a stray phrase remaining, and not credited either source. I have often derived information in a post from multiple news sources but only linked to the one that I felt related the event the most thoroughly and clearly. Another writer’s work has sometimes sparked an idea for a post that was substantially different, and I have not credited the source of that spark.

All of this is common practice in blogging, but it is still wrong, and sloppiness is always a slippery slope. In the wake of “The Mary Frances Prevost Affair,” a colleague alerted me that I had included one complete sentence and part of another in an Ethics Alarms post that were identical to the post of another writer on the same subject. I didn’t even recall using the source, but upon going over my notes, I found that the earlier post had supplied me with the bulk of the facts I relied upon, though not the analysis of them. . I immediately contacted the author to apologize, and he was gracious and understanding. Nonetheless, this should never happen, especially on an ethics blog.

Therefore, as of today, Ethics Alarms will maintain a strict policy of crediting all sources that go into the inspiration, research and writing of the posts here. Links in the body of the text will be either be for informational purposes only, such as when I make a gratuitous cultural reference that nobody under the age of 50 is likely to recognize, or to back up direct quotes. At the end of each post, there will be credits and/or links listed, when appropriate, in some or all of the following categories: Continue reading →

The Perplexing Law and Ethics of Copyright Violations On The Web

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

For once I’m not going to try to summarize a useful article, but will just suggest that you read it. From the future (the article is mysteriously dated May 1, 2012), journalist Eriq Gardner tells of his experience with Righthaven, the organization that was created explicitly to sue bloggers and others for copyright violations on the web. He tells of how he came to believe that the defenders of copyright law, not those who would destroy it, had fairness, logic and ethics on their side.

The article is well-timed, given my current travails with an unapologetic plagiarist, and my own position on copyright, which is consistent with the author’s. It also features a guest appearance by attorney Marc Randazza, the First Amendment specialist who came to my aid when  I was threatened with a lawsuit over an opinion someone didn’t like.

The article, titled The Righthaven Experiment: A Journalist Wonders If a Copyright Troll Was Right to Sue Him, is well worth your time.

The Plagiarist Strikes Back!

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

Move along, Atticus. Nothing to see here, and I wouldn't want you to barf.

Well, some of you called it. I was a sap. I expected better.

Mary Frances Prevost, the California criminal law attorney who substantially expropriated an Ethics Alarms post and placed her name on it, responded to my request for an explanation, and failing that, an apology, a retraction, and proper credit, with this (on her Facebook page), in which she said, in part:

“I received a histrionic run-on-sentence email from someone named “Jack Marshall” today accusing me of committing crimes, threatening to report me to my bar association(s), the Inns of Court, and essentially spend your days and nights harassing me.” I have also viewed a a highly unethical rant published purportedly by you on a blog suggesting strongly that I have engaged in unethical conduct throughout the entire course of my career. I have counseled with one of the country’s premiere ethics attorneys. Here’s the result: 1) accusing me of a crime is defamation per se and unethical; 2) suggesting that my entire law practice has been based on unethical conduct is defamatory and unethical. I maintained copies both of your email and blog. It is clear that you are hell bent on engaging in systematic harassment and unethical conduct, the likes of which can, and most likely will, develop into a lawsuit unless rescinded forthwith. It is clear you have little to do in your life besides sent me emails accusing me of crimes, and writing poorly written blog posts accusing me of immoral behavior. Interesting how one making such claims, engages in most egregious conduct himself….But the sheer amount of energy really suggests something more: a lack of work; too much time; off your meds. I suggest you take a look inward and remove your defamatory and unethical blog post regarding me. Indeed, you should come clean on your blog. You’ve practiced law only two weeks before giving up. Yet, your resume suggests far more experience. I think you should rethink what you’ve done.”

Now how do you like that? Continue reading →

Is a Plagiarist a Trustworthy Attorney? Let’s Ask Mary Frances Prevost!

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

This is me, apparently.

San Diego criminal defense attorney Mary Frances Prevost has an interesting post on her blog about the ethics of George Zimmerman’s first set of attorneys.

MINE.

You wouldn’t know it was mine, of course, because blogger/attorney/ former Washington Post journalist Prevost has slapped her own name on it. There it is, right at the beginning: “by Mary Francis Prevost.” I think that’s interesting.

Her post, entitled “The Trayvon Martin Case Trainwreck: George Zimmerman’s Attorneys Need To Shut Up!”, was posted the same day as the Ethics Alarms post, “Next To Board The Trayvon Martin Ethics Train Wreck? Why, The Lawyers, Of Course!”, which began, coincidentally enough, by quoting John Steel’s post from the Legal Ethics Forum that read, “[S]hut up, guys. Shut the h*** up.”  It was two introductory paragraphs later, however, when “her” post got into the substance of “her” analysis of the ethical problems with the farewell press conference given by George Zimmerman’s attorneys shortly before the shooter of Trayvon Martin was charged, however, that I really began getting a serious dose of deja vu, also known as “Holy crap! This woman stole my article!” Continue reading →

Internet Betrayal: The Dork, The Spreadsheet, and the E-mail Avenger

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

If someone sends you an obnoxious, arrogant, idiotic or otherwise embarrassing e-mail, the ethical thing to do is to tell the individual what’s wrong with it, and perhaps save them from future embarrassment. The principle is simple: The Golden Rule. When you send a private message to someone and pour out your heart, empty your skull, vent your spleen, or otherwise express things you probably should have slept on and moderated in the clear light of day, you don’t want your correspondent to use the internet as a weapon against you and introduce you to millions at your worst. It is a terrible, cruel, indefensible thing to do…to anyone. Continue reading →

Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Post-Bail Update

/ Jack Marshall / 103 Comments

Sadly, still with a good head of steam...

George Zimmerman has been released on $150,000 bail, prompting more ethical misconduct from the media and the lynch mob on the Left:

  • Cable news was reporting that Martin’s parents are “devastated” at the news of Zimmerman’s release. They should not be devastated that an innocent man (in the eyes of the law) is not being forced to stay in prison for more than a year to await trial, and the fact that they are suggests that vengeance, not “justice”, is their true objective. Meanwhile, for CNN et al. to be reporting this as if releasing a defendant on bail is some kind of gift to Zimmerman or affront to Martin’s family is irresponsible and provocative. The news organizations have an obligation to explain that bail is based on the likelihood that the defendant is not a danger to others and not a flight risk. Zimmerman is neither: he turned himself into police as soon as he was charged, and has ties to the community. In America, we do not keep people in jail before they have been convicted unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Citizens interested in ‘justice” should not be devastated when any fellow citizen is afforded freedom up to and until his guilt of a crime has been proven. It is a right they may need themselves some day. Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce, Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Division: Mansfield Frazier

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

"Do the right thing, George. Or else."

Mansfield Frazier, whose name I was blissfully unaware of until I read his astounding opinion piece in The Daily Beast, thinks that in order to prevent another set of deadly riots along the lines of what occurred when the police who beat Rodney King were acquitted, George Zimmerman should be persuaded to accept a prison sentence without a trial by jury of his own. “The time is now for strong hands to take the helm and steady the ship of state—not to mention our national racial, political and legal discourse. The paramount concern has to be to avert a large-scale racial calamity.” he writes.

No, the paramount concern is for the justice system to give George Zimmerman the same due process of law, same fair trial, same guaranteed legal defense and same right to a trial before his peers as any other citizen accused of an alleged crime that has not been used to fan racial hate and suspicion on MSNBC. Those concerned about potential race riots should look to the people who irresponsibly lit the fuse to ignite them, and order them to snuff out the flame. Those concerned should observe the actions of the Florida prosecutors, who have given every indication that they either have no valid case or are incapable of presenting one. They should seek to discipline a national news media that has misinformed the public about the case, stating that there were elements of racism and profiling in Trayvon Martin’s death when the evidence so far firmly establishes neither. It is not George Zimmerman’s responsibility to sacrifice his freedom to prevent a social calamity that was not and will not be of his making. Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: Jennifer Porter Gore, Rep. Keith Ellison’s Communications Director

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“As with all Twitter accounts a re-tweet is not an endorsement.  The congressman removed the tweet because it appeared to endorse use of a nasty term, which is not what we wanted.”

—-Rep. Keith Ellison’s (D-Minn) Communications Director, Jennifer Porter Gore, making a ridiculous and incredible defense of a re-tweet by the Congressman on Twitter, sending out a message from a supporter referring to Mitt Romney as ” a heartless douchebag.” Ellison has been among the most vocal of Congressional advocates for civility in public and political discourse.

Various media noted that the crude and uncivil tweet was an odd thing for the Congressman to adopt as his own, since he had repeatedly spoken on the need for civility, called for a tolerance pledge, and strongly supported the civility pledge promoted by the Jewish Council on Public Affairs. Yet Ellison, or someone whom he entrusted to run a Twitter account in his name, sent the “heartless douchebag” tweet around the Twittersphere.  When reporters started asking uncomfortable questions using words like “hypocritical”  Ellison’s office took the tweet down.  Continue reading →