The racist won.

Well, to be precise, everyone but the racist won.

White supremacist Richard Spencer will speak at the University of Florida, says First Amendment attorney Gary Edinger. As I wrote three days ago, that was in doubt and almost in court.

Edinger represents Carmen Padgett, who’s essentially Spencer’s agent. Last night, Edinger sent me a statement he’s released publicly…

It appears that a resolution can be reached and that litigation will not be necessary. Mr. Padgett has received assurances that Mr. Spencer’s speaking engagement will go forward on a different date, but most likely in the same venue: the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts on campus. We have not yet established a new date or terms for the speech.

Edinger blames Hurricane Irma for “the slow pace of our discussions.” But he’s meeting with UF officials by phone this morning “at which time we hope to announce firm details.”

A hurricane and a racist. Not your typical news day.

So…

• Richard Spencer and his agent won’t extract a cash settlement from another public university, as they did from Auburn in May.
• Sometime soon, Spencer will speak on a college campus where he’s not wanted.
• He’ll be met by protesters expressing their Constitutional rights.

The system works. Too bad we can’t negotiate with hurricanes the same way.

I stand with this racist.

If you’re a patriotic American, so should you.

Meet Richard Spencer, one of the nation’s best known white supremacists. Actually, he’s most famous for getting the crap kicked out of him.

In Charlottesville last month, the 29-year-old Montanan got pepper-sprayed — and then taunted by the likes of the Washingtonian, which ran this headline: “Stop What You’re Doing and Enjoy These Photos of Richard Spencer Crying.”

Back in January, Spencer got punched in the face at an Inauguration Day rally in DC. Maybe you saw it…

…because it has more than 3 million views and inspired dozens of mocking memes.

Now Spencer wants to speak at the University of Florida, my alma mater. (Is it still my alma mater if I got expelled?) After three weeks of trying, he still hasn’t secured a date. So there might be a lawsuit.

It’s like this…

• A 23-year-old Georgia State University student named Cameron Padgett is acting as Spencer’s agent, booking him on a national college speaking tour.
• In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the University of Florida denied Padgett’s request to bring Spencer to campus, citing “serious concerns for safety.”
• Padgett hired Gary Edinger, a Gainesville First Amendment attorney, to either secure Sept. 12 as a speaking engagement or sue the school.

Padgett has sued before and won. In May, Auburn settled for $29,000 after the public university tried to deny Spencer’s appearance there.

If he sues again, I’ll help.

And I’ll ask for SPJ’s help, too.

Padgett signed a “facility rental contract” for Spencer to speak at the Phillips Center, pictured above. I can’t imagine a racist filling all those seats, but I suspect that’s not the goal.

I beleve Padgett wants to get denied. Why? The math…

1. If Spencer speaks without getting hassled, he won’t draw 20 people. His real audience isn’t his meager supporters, it’s his copious opponents.
2. Padgett’s contract with the University of Florida will cost him $6,000 for rent and security. When Auburn refused and later relented, Padgett was paid nearly $30,000.

…which means he could easily be more profiteer than white supremacist.

Thus, helping Padgett get permission for Spencer to speak on campus isn’t just morally correct, it bleeds both crowds and cash from two assholes.

We all have the right to be wrong.

When Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos were similarly denied campus speaking engagements earlier this year, I was stunned by SPJ’s silence.

Journalists know better than most: If the government can mute free speech because of “safety concerns,” two things surely follow…

1. Protesters will realize threats of violence – or actual violence – are the best way to silence their opponents. Mob rule will overwhelm democratic debate.
2. Governments will be tempted to cite “public safety” when they just don’t want to deal with the public – or the press.

Alas, I couldn’t do much about Coulter and Yiannopoulos. SPJ’s arcane rules dictate I represent only Region 3 – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Well, Spencer is in my territory now. And this weekend is SPJ’s annual convention. So I’ve contacted Padgett’s attorney, and I’ve submitted the resolution below, which attendees at the convention will vote on.

I’ve also asked SPJ’s Florida chapter to set aside money from its Legal Defense Fund – and notify the University of Florida that Spencer has at least one ally who’s not an asshole.

RESOLUTION: Supporting free speech even when it’s offensive – because the alternative is so much worse

Submitted by: Region 3 director Michael Koretzky

WHEREAS one of SPJ’s six missions is, “The Society must maintain constant vigilance in protection of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press;”

WHEREAS in 2003, SPJ’s Quill magazine declared, “All free-speech cases affect journalism;”

WHEREAS in 1998, SPJ called a Constitutional amendment banning flag-burning “a threat to freedom of speech;”

WHEREAS in 2010, SPJ decried a California law restricting violent video games by saying, “the Court should not eliminate First Amendment protection for violent speech” because of “the negative implications of a violent speech exception for journalists;”

WHEREAS white supremacist Richard Spencer speaking at the University of Florida, a public institution, is no more or less egregious than the cases stated above;

WHEREAS SPJ knows that once free speech is restricted for one group, journalists aren’t far behind;

WHEREAS SPJ also knows when “safety concerns” are allowed to routinely squelch offensive speech, it’s not long before those same concerns will be used to prevent publication of information that offends those in power;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that SPJ urges the University of Florida and all public institutions of higher learning to uphold their Constitutional responsibilities and educational missions, no matter how unpleasant that might be – whether it’s hosting Richard Cross, Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever asshole comes next.

Is this magazine cover sexist?

When I was first asked that question Saturday, I said, No, but it’s stupid.

The cover story in SPJ’s bimonthly magazine is about journalism training, and the cover photo is a lame stock image chosen by a lazy editor – who quit his job a few weeks ago and obviously didn’t give a damn.

Then I saw this…

@spj_tweets I am FURIOUS. With all the "locker room talk" and sexism in tech discussion, you think THIS is an appropriate cover?? pic.twitter.com/p2Jkm5akJf

— Marie C. Baca (@mariecbaca) August 12, 2017

…and I thought, Sure, it sucks, but “not appropriate”?

Then SPJ member Marie Baca wrote this, in which she said…

I have a feeling that some of you think I am blowing this out of proportion, but I also have a feeling that some of you know that I’m not. Maybe some of you have had some of the same experiences that I’ve had in the journalism industry. You know, the ones that aren’t something worth filing a sexual harassment or discrimination lawsuit over, but the ones that very quietly tell you that you maybe you don’t deserve the same respect or opportunities as your older, whiter, male-r colleagues.

…and I thought, Damn, but does SPJ really look that bad?

Over the weekend, my fellow SPJ board members emailed (too) casually about this. Without asking us, SPJ posted this reply…

pic.twitter.com/6VnCz77hrp

— Society of Pro Journ (@spj_tweets) August 12, 2017

…and I thought, That’s not the way to handle this – no ifs, ands, or buts.

This is what irks me most about SPJ. We run from the Big Questions. We don’t like to admit we’re wrong, which means we never learn.

I admit it right now: I was wrong, but I’m glad I was. I learned something this weekend. When was the last weekend you learned anything?

I learn best when I say yeah, but and the reply kicks my ass. I emailed Baca yesterday, copped to changing my mind, and asked her some questions. Her answers were enlightening and depressing.

Asked and answered

I’ve edited Baca’s comments because they were long – but not boring or rambling. 

Q. How would you rate SPJ’s handling of this? 

I would characterize SPJ’s handling of this issue as “horrendous.”

Any organization that represents an industry like journalism, one that has a long history of discrimination, has the duty to treat accusations of sexism with great seriousness. It was clear from the initial response I received from the SPJ Twitter account – a non-apology if I’ve ever seen one – that this was not going to happen.

Q. How could we do better next time? (Because I won’t be surprised if there’s a next time.)

Before SPJ said anything, on social media or otherwise, the following things should have happened:

• Interviews should have been conducted with the people involved with the cover photo decision as well as the two people who complained.

• The directors in charge of diversity as well as the ethics panel should have been asked to review the complaint and the comments from Quill staff against SPJ discrimination policies and issued a recommendation.

• The board should have discussed the issue in light of the aforementioned information and recommendations.

Then, and only then, should any sort of statement be offered on behalf of SPJ.

Q. Has anyone personally reached out to you yet?

I just got off the phone with president Lynn Walsh, and it is difficult to describe the enormity of my disappointment in our conversation.

Lynn seemed both irritated and defensive. She acknowledged the photo was irrelevant for a journalism publication, but said she did not find it sexist or inappropriate.

She insisted that SPJ had already issued an appropriate response via Twitter and said the organization did not plan to investigate the issue further or issue any statement on behalf of the organization.

Q. Some SPJers think this is no big deal. What would you tell them?

To those who say this is no big deal, I say this:

Why have I received hundreds of social media comments from both male and female journalists expressing their disgust at the photo?

Why did it spur a discussion among my colleagues about the countless instances of sexism they’ve experienced over the years in all sorts of different journalism organizations?

Why was the knee-jerk reaction of the SPJ to defend the photo as opposed to taking more than a few hours to discuss the complaint?

And finally, why are we as journalists willing to call out others in positions of authority on their overt and less-overt acts of discrimination, but so unwilling to turn the looking glass on ourselves?

The real damage

Honestly, I think Baca is angry out of proportion. At this point – and I could be wrong again – I’d conclude: The photo is sexist, but it’s a misdemeanor, not a high crime. 

Still, I wonder how much of Baca’s outrage is due to SPJ’s terse and timid response. It reminds me of the old journalism expression, “It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.”

It’s not the sexism, it’s the silence.

You know what the real tragedy is? Excellent journalists like Marie Baca won’t ever run for SPJ’s board of directors. And she is excellent. I looked her up.

Baca is versatile enough to report deeply about “forced pooling” in shale drilling for ProPublica and then turn around and write this for The Wall Street Journal: “Near Lake Tahoe There’s a Bear So Tough, Bullets Bounce Off His Head.”

She’s the kind of journalist we need running SPJ. But I wonder if she’ll even renew her SPJ membership when the next bill arrives.

The real problem

Without violating any confidences, I can tell you this…

Some of my fellow board members don’t think this even deserves a discussion. There was a lot of, “I would hate to see this incident detract from the important work we have to do.”

Thing is, we don’t have a lot of work more important than this. SPJ’s board tends to obsess over “chapter financial report requirements” and “election of unaffiliated delegates” – which actually means little to SPJ, even less to me, and nothing to you.

Meanwhile, Baca and dozens of other journalists are publicly questioning a public SPJ decision. Even if you don’t mind the cover image, you can acknowledge an image problem.

It’s not going away either, because Baca isn’t backing down…

I will continue to demand that SPJ investigate the cover photo situation, acknowledge the sexism inherent therein, come up with a plan to prevent this from happening in the future, and issue a public statement describing all of these things.

Want to know the weirdest part? Six men sit on SPJ’s board of directors – along with 14 women, which includes the current president and the next one.

So if Baca isn’t fighting The Man. She’s fighting The Woman.

SPJ Diversity chair Dori Zinn, a friend of mine, opined last night. Read her here. I kind of doubt SPJ will tweet about either of our posts today.

It’s the story that never dies…

College journalists are notoriously poor interviewers. So for the past three years, SPJ has trained them to chat up their sources by quizzing corpses. This free program is called Zombie Stories, and it can easily spread to your city.

It works like this…

Students don free white Zombie Stories T-shirts and venture outside to interview professionally made-up zombies – each carrying a bottle of fake (?) blood. If students ask stupid questions, they get doused. Once their shirts are all red, they’re dead. But if they pose solid questions (see below) they win cash and prizes.

It happened again one week ago…

On the Saturday night before Halloween, Zombie Stories visited Atlanta – on the exact spot where a key scene from the first episode of The Walking Dead was filmed. It’s an alleyway near a pub called, appropriately enough for journalists, Sidebar – where SPJ once hosted another participatory event called Putting the ME in Social Media.

SPJer Amanda Rabines flew up from Miami on her own dime to become a zombie. Here’s her dead-eye view of the creepy evening…

By Amanda Rabines…

It’s the time of the year when I drive past Halloween-decorated houses admiringly, and finally dish out the darkest clothes in my wardrobe in accordance to “fashion laws.”

For this year’s CMA Fall National Media Convention, I embraced that darker side with more black and less life. I turned into a zombie for the sake of journalism, and it wasn’t my first time.

This is the second year I participate in Zombie Stories, an event organized by SPJ Region 3. It’s a workshop to die for, if you want to be punny.

The premise is that journalism students are given an exclusive interview with the undead, and as SPJ Region 3 Director Michael Koretzky says, “If you can interview a zombie you can interview anyone.”

So Gorehound Productions’ Lucas Godfrey painted me an unhealthy looking green and splattered some fake blood on my face to make me interview-ready.

This year’s Zombie Stories took place in a familiar setting to anyone who watches AMC’s The Walking Dead.

I along with seven other zombies shuffled and stumbled our way through downtown Atlanta, to the scene where Rick Grimes first sees the horror of the zombie apocalypse, fresh from a coma, too…

…or, at least, that’s what Bryce McNeil, assistant director for student media at Georgia State University, told us (because I’ve never actually watched the show).

Zombie Stories took place in an alley next to the Sidebar, and I did my best to stay in character by growling and getting uncomfortably close to the students who came to interview me.

If a student asked me a question resembling the boring cliché “what’s it like to be a zombie,” we poured fake blood on their T-shirts. At the end of the event, nearly everyone had some traces of blood.

But after a three-day journalism convention, these students were very quipped with their questions. I was impressed, to say the least.

Here are some of the questions and answers that stood out…

Jarred Todd / Georgia State University Perimeter College

Q. What influences your decision into what horde to join?
A. The freshness of their style, or the freshness of those they kill.

Q. Which body part do you go for first when you corner your victims?
A. The neck. My wife was a little fast, but I got her.

Zoe Debo / Hudson Valley Community College

Q. Can Zombies procreate?
A. The females will kill the males and vomit into their skulls, to procreate. We can reproduce in a couple of hours.

Q. How long can you go before eating flesh again?
A. Usually can go for a couple of days on a brain.

Kayla Ebner / Roger Williams University

Q. Which presidential candidate would you rather eat? Who do you think would taste best?
A. Trump.

On our way back to our hotels I flipped the switch and interviewed some of the winners – like Kayla Ebner from Rhode Island.

She said she wanted to get political because that’s what seems to be on everyone’s mind, especially with elections around the corner.

“I really wanted to bring in the election because it’s big right now, it’s a relevant thing, and I wanted to put a funny spin on it because we’re interviewing zombies, and that’s not a regular thing,” Ebner said.

Zoe Debo was asking some hardball questions, focusing on getting information necessary to understand more about zombies.

“I went in there with a motive. I wanted to give humans the most information about the zombies that they could get,” Debo said, after reflecting on what she learned. “Having blood poured on your face really helps to remind you and drill into your head that you really need to ask for their names and you can’t forget their names.”

Some of the other zombies had plans to hangout with the journalists after Zombie Stories.

I’d like to think the stories we shared painted a better pictures of zombies in general. That even the ghouls that arise in late October have a story to share, and if done correctly, can amount to better relationships overall.

Atlanta zombie photos by Kayla Ebner, Roger Williams University

Want to interview this guy?

You can argue Bob Woodward is the nation’s most famous reporter – the pinnacle of shoe-leather journalism in an era of celebrity dilettantes who pursue their brands more than stories.

If you believe everything old becomes new again – kind of like comic-book heroes and crystal meth – then maybe old-fashioned journalism will make a comeback. We’ll find out in October in Washington, DC, when Woodward is a keynote speaker at the nation’s largest college media convention.

Woodward will be interviewed by five students whose parents were still in school when he made his name covering Watergate.

It’s a risky move for the Associated Collegiate Press, which organized this convention. If you’ve ever watched a White House or NFL press conference, you realize just how many dumb questions pro journalists ask.

But ACP executive director Laura Widmer is undaunted.

“At ACP in D.C., we don’t just want to teach journalism, we want our students to experience journalism,” Widmer says. “What a great opportunity for a college journalist to be onstage and interview one of the most famous reporters of our time. That’s an experience they won’t soon forget.”

To land this gig, students need to apply just like they would any other job. SPJ will help review the resumes, clips, and cover letters. If you’re interested or know someone who might be, click the photo below for more details. Got questions not answered here or there? Email me.

* No SPJ membership required. We’re cool like that.

The world just got a little smaller.

And not in a good way.

According to Adweek, CNN’s entire international desk – based in Atlanta – is closing, and more than two dozen employees will “have to reapply for their jobs.”

My first thought was, “Less journalism in the world.”

But assistant Region 3  director Sharon Dunten, who lives outside Atlanta, thought, “Less journalists in my city.”

Here’s her report…

Welcome to the Best Former Journalists Club.

Welcome to the Best Former Journalists Club. As a member, you are Pulitzer Prize winners, beloved columnists, middle-age TV anchors renown for their news styles, or maybe a copy editor who is celebrating her 62^thbirthday. A member may be a producer who has given 60 hours a week for decades to make sure their station gets the “breaking news” first.

Your day starts out like any other day … editing copy and growling about the strict AP style rules you live by as a professional. Or maybe you are the producer who fights off the daily urban traffic jams to arrive just in time to address the evening broadcast lineup. Just another day of the news. Another day of working in the industry that you love.

You know many journalists who have lost their jobs during the bloodbath of downsizing newsrooms as the Great Recession swept through the country. You take a deep breath and count yourself lucky.

But then the “layoff “alarm arrives early and quickly through texts, emails or phone calls. Sorry, your luck has run out. You are one of many facing the guillotine today. You are losing your job — maybe, sort of.

On Monday, Feb. 8, CNN International announced a layoff for most of its employees in Atlanta. Downsizing is mentioned and Oh! “you can re-apply for your job.” What does that exactly mean? And will moving to a different continent be part of the re-hire? You know journalism is changing, and job loss is a part of it. But working for CNN in Atlanta was always seen a plum job; a milestone in your career to work for the first 24/7 news network. Thank you Ted Turner! But Ted doesn’t own CNN anymore. Time Warner does. And along with the CNN International staff, Atlanta bleeds with you.

The lit CNN sign looks smaller as its red neon light twists through the CNN logo on the top floor of the the CNN Center building. Its huge CNN monument on the sidewalk stands predominantly for another time when news was produced to serve the viewers and not only its stakeholders. The center now sits in the shadow of the new mammoth Mercedes-Benz Stadium where the Atlanta Falcons will call home. The news institution that helped build Atlanta into a mega city is fading away in the new Atlanta skyline along with hundreds of CNN Atlanta employees.

This guy has a great idea.

Michael Pitts is a Republican state representative in South Carolina. Yesterday, he introduced a bill called the South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law.

Pitts wants the state to license journalists – and if they fail his standards and flout his law, they can spend up to 30 days in jail.

In the past 24 hours, Pitts has been mocked by the left (Mother Jones) and doubted by the right (The Daily Caller). After all, it’s odd for a small-government Republican to expand government into the newsroom.

But I see promise in Pitts’ proposal. Sure, there are problems, but there’s also opportunity…

PROVISION: Before working as a journalist for a media outlet in this State, a person shall provide a criminal record background check to the media outlet to determine journalistic competence.

PROBLEM: Because Rush Limbaugh was booked on drug charges in 2006 and cut a deal with prosecutors, his popular radio show would be banned in South Carolina. Like him or hate him, Limbaugh shouldn’t be censored. Pitts’ conservative constituency would surely agree.

And yes, Limbaugh is a journalist under Pitts’ broad definition: “‘Journalist’ means a person who in his professional capacity collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information for a media outlet, including an employee or an independent contractor.”

PROVISION: A person is not competent to be a journalist if…the person has demonstrated a reckless disregard of the basic codes and canons of professional journalism associations, including a disregard of truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability.

PROBLEM: Who decides? Pitts’ bill doesn’t say, and it can’t be him – because he’s already been caught in a “disregard of truth” and a lack of “public accountability.”

In September, The Pulitzer Prize-winning Post and Courier reported that Pitts spent “nearly $6,000 jetting to Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to hobnob with ‘sportsmen legislators.’

“Pitts said the summits were ‘mostly business’ concerning hunting and fishing laws and initiatives. But photos from these events show Pitts and others proudly posing with freshly killed pheasants and other game.”

While that’s not illegal, it’s surely unethical. And weirdly, Pitts serves on the House Ethics Committee. It must be easier to legislate ethics for others than to practice them yourself.

PROVISION: A person who works as a journalist without registering…for a first offense, must be fined not more than twenty-five dollars; for a second offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than fifteen days, or both; and for a third or subsequent offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

OPPORTUNITY: SPJ can boost its membership.

As the SPJ board member representing the southeast United States, I’ll offer South Carolinians this perk: If you can’t get licensed because you’ve behaved no better than the sponsor of this bill, I’ll match you with an SPJ member who lives outside your state.

You’ll write under that SPJer’s byline, and I’ll keep records attesting that the stories are really yours. When you apply for other jobs – hopefully in other states – you can show off your best work, and I’ll back you up.

Even if you earn the Registry Office’s blessing, you might not want to pay the “application fee,” which has yet to be announced but will be “an amount determined by the office.” You, too, can use the SPJ Byline Exchange Service and save.

But to use this free service, you must join SPJ. Since SPJ membership costs only $75, that’s cheaper than a second violation and might cost less than the application fee.

Finally, I’ll offer to pay the $25 first-offense fine for any unlicensed South Carolina journalists who report on their failed attempt to get licensed and thus get fined. I love it when stories eat their own tails.

Alas, the South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law has zero chance of passing – even Pitts admitted as much to (unlicensed) reporters. Too bad. I was hoping he’d register public information officers next.

Here’s an irony: Media maligning SPJ.

Last week, someone told me about an article that ripped this fine organization.

(To be specific, it was a tweet from the “crown regent of tactical shitposting.” Just how barren was my life before Twitter?)

The provocative headline: BLACK LEADER: MEDIA COVER UP MASS SHOOTINGS — BY BLACKS.

One of my few deeply held personal convictions is, “Never trust a headline in ALL CAPS unless a war is ending or a man is walking on the moon.” So I was skeptical before I began reading.

If you’ve already clicked the link, you’ll notice it ran on WorldNetDaily, a conservative website that most journalists can’t stand — not because of its right-wing politics, but because of its crappy reporting.

However, one of my other convictions is to judge each story on its own merits, whether it runs in The New York Times or the National Enquirer (maybe because I’ve freelanced for both).

SPJ makes an appearance about halfway down, after a man named Colin Flaherty agreed with the statement, “black activists and elected officials pressure editors to ignore or downplay black violence.”

The story continues from there…

The Society of Professional Journalists aids the cover-up, according to Flaherty, by telling their members to not report the race of people involved in violent crimes.

“The SPJ chapters all over the country give seminars on this,” Flaherty said. “Their national magazine writes stories about this, all saying the same thing: Race has nothing to do with violent crime, so do not report it.

“This is weird because this same group with the same reporters are constantly writing about black colleges, black churches, black funeral homes, black police officer groups, ad infinitum. But black violence? Nothing.”

That would be awful. If it were true.

Colin Flaherty is a controversial guy.

WND says he’s “done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime.” The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him a “marginal media figure.”

I’m going to lean toward marginal, because I‘ve served on the SPJ board since 2008 (with one year off to preserve my sanity) and have never heard about any of this. I’ve also been a chapter president, and we never gave “seminars” about not reporting stuff.

So I emailed Flaherty to ask him how he did his reporting. He replied, “check out the article in Quill on the topic.” That’s it. That’s all he wrote me.

Quill is SPJ’s bimonthly magazine for its members. I found this article from last month: Finding Your Voice: Reporting on Inequality Fairly and Ethically. It’s a lot more nuanced than Flaherty implies.

In fact, to be honest, it’s kind of boring. It uses terms like “perception cycle” and “responsibility continuum” and has sentences like this: “This continuum illustrates the hierarchy of influence that ultimately leads to disparate social outcomes.”

I emailed Flaherty again and asked if this was the story he was talking about. He replied…

was invited to write a reply to the Quill about it. which i did. which they never used or replied to. and it all began when the quill ran a review of my book from thomas sowell. without mentioning my book. you have a ton to go on. so go for it.

That’s weird, because Quill has no record of Colin Flaherty or Thomas Sowell. (The latter is a conservative economist.) Maybe Flaherty is right, but I can’t find any evidence, and he’s not offering any. So there’s a ton of something going on. If I had to guess: Flaherty is mostly upset that SPJ didn’t pimp his book.

But there’s no crying in journalism.

The world won’t shed a tear for a journalism organization getting railroaded by a media outlet. SPJ won’t shed a tear, either.

That’s because we’re real familiar with shoddy journalism. Hell, if we weren’t, we never would’ve written the SPJ Code of Ethics.

But here’s what sucks: While we’re accustomed to this crap, most regular citizens aren’t. Once they get this treatment personally, or their heroes do, they distrust all journalists forever.

That turns to downright hatred when readers ask those journalists for proof of their reporting, and they get arrogance rather than explanations.

I’ve always said and still believe: “Nothing is more hypocritical than a thin-skinned journalist.” Now I’m adding “dangerous.”

When is a brawl a riot? When is it a race riot?

Around 7 p.m. Saturday, up to 2,000 “youths” rampaged through a mall in Louisville, Kentucky. But was it a riot?

The local FOX and  ABC affiliates hedged their headlines with quote marks: Kentucky mall shut down after police respond to numerous “riots” and Police: ‘Riots’ shut down Mall St. Matthews early.

National media settled on a less racially charged word: TIME and NBC used brawl. But none of these outlets reported the race of the “rioters,” which was obvious from some of the cellphone videos shot by shoppers inside the mall. Many were black.

That omission bugged Breitbart, the popular conservative website…

The story has received a great deal of national exposure, but the mainstream media coverage has consistently left out the race of the “youth” that went wilding through the mall, as well as consistently using the number 2,000 as the number of people involved in the incident. The reporting is part of the pattern of misreporting on stories about large groups of black youths goings on rampages nationwide in the past few years.

Earlier this year, Breitbart was slammed for “race-baiting” by liberal sites like Salon and New Republic. I wonder if both things can be true: Breitbart is right to call out the media for censoring itself, while simultaneously catering to the racists in its readership.

Below are just some of the objectively offensive comments I culled from the more than 2,000 on Breitbart’s mall article. Nearly all are uncontested by other Breitbart readers or Breitbart itself, which is a shame — because all conservatives aren’t racists, just as all liberals aren’t socialists.

Oddly, on many Breitbart posts about Muslims, the comment section usually includes something like, “When will Muslims call out the violence in their own community?”

Well, Breitbart, when are you going to call out the racism in yours?