The Post-Star war on underage drinking (part 2)

by contributor Mark Wilson

Also see part 1

New York State keeps detailed motor vehicle accident statistics, compiling them year-to-year and county-by-county. Those data as well as the aggregate state figures compiled since 2001 are available online at safeNY.gov. The standards for data collecting and reporting have remained consistent since 2003, the year New York lowered the blood alcohol content standard for drunk driving, and the year the Glens Falls Post-Star initiated its policy on publishing names of teenagers busted for drinking.

Data in the following comparison are derived from police-reported accidents—collisions resulting in fatalities, personal injury or property damage. These records are more uniform within each region and over time than DWI ticketing, for example (another standard measure), which varies regionally and seasonally, skewed by periodic local crack-downs, check points, etc.

To get a sense of how the Glens Falls region’s statistics for underage drivers involved in alcohol-related accidents stacked up against the average statistics across New York, we set the number of alcohol-related-accident drivers aged twenty and younger both regionally and statewide against the number of alcohol-related-accident drivers from all age groups and compared the resulting percentages. A consistent drop in the regional percentage against the statewide percentage would suggest that the campaign was influencing underage drinking trends favorably.

The results
While eight years of data form no solid basis for statistical analysis, the regional numbers—despite countervailing swings in the middle years of the range—seem to track overall with the statewide norms (even to the point of convergence with state figures in 2009 and 2010, the most recent years evaluated). While this may not be enough of a statistical sample to determine failure of the Post-Star’s policy and overall campaign, there is nothing here to encourage their advocates, either.

Not surprisingly Post-Star editors have not brought statistical analysis to bear on their policy of shaming teenage drinkers. Nor have they cited the statistics in their periodic recommitment to the campaign. If anything they seem to be spurred onward by their own often overheated editorial rhetoric on the subject: “Underage drinking is dangerous and if you don’t believe me, I will show you the headstones.”

Ken Tingley publicly declared his own immeasurable standard for continuing the crusade:

“If there is one young person who learns the lesson, if there is one young person who gets grounded for life for embarrassing their parents, if there is one young person who pauses to consider whether to accept a beer at the next party because they don’t want to see their name in the newspaper, then it is worth it.”

There is little doubt, given the power and range of the Post-Star’s editorial voice, that the shaming policy and Mr. Tingley’s angry bluster have successfully reached any number of kids (and/or their parents). On the same token, given the contrary nature of so many adolescents, can anyone doubt that as many kids may have reacted (sadly) predictably to Mr. Tingley’s bullying and ignored the grim statistics, or worse, headed defiantly in the opposite direction?

The lack of movement of the underage drunk driving numbers against the backdrop of statewide figures suggests, at the very least, that some neutralizing backlash may be at work here.

The broader picture
One of the more troubling aspects of the Post-Star policy is its selective and asymmetric targeting of underage drinkers for the sake of reducing the deaths of young people in motor vehicle accidents.

In 2010 alcohol was the primary cause of 30.5% of all motor vehicle fatalities throughout all upstate counties across all age groups. Speed, by comparison, was the primary cause of 29.2%. The statistics in the three counties served by the Post-Star were quite different: In Saratoga, Warren and Washington counties alcohol was responsible for 20.6% of motor vehicle fatalities, claiming seven lives, while speeding was responsible for 35.3% of motor vehicle fatalities claiming twelve lives. Moreover, in 2010 speed caused 439 injuries across the three counties (31.9%), while alcohol caused only 174 (11.3%).

When you add to that the fact that teenagers are far less likely to drive drunk (accounting for 9.3% of all drivers in alcohol-related accidents statewide) and far more likely to speed (accounting for 22% of all speeding-caused accidents statewide), the math becomes clear: speeding—and not drinking—is by far the deadliest behavior by drivers young and old on our roadways. It comes as no surprise that the Post-Star is devoting none of its diminishing resources to publishing the names of speeders in an effort to embarrass them and their families in a misguided effort—no matter how well-intentioned—to alter their behavior.

Two final thoughts on this subject
This challenge to (and argument against) the Post-Star’s policy of publishing names of teenagers fined for drinking should not be interpreted in any way as condoning the behavior. While it may be a rite of passage—as even Ken Tingley concedes—it remains reckless as it ever was. When combined with driving it has abundant potential to be life-destroying. The sole concern of this post is that the approach undertaken nine years ago by the editor of the Post-Star to combat the issue may simply have made matters worse.

The Post-Star is in many respects a fine newspaper. It is, to be sure, a troubled newspaper belonging to a troubled corporation in a troubled industry in a weak economy. The last thing the editors and publisher of the paper should be doing at this stage is alienating its future readers and subscribers in a way that from any angle looks like a double standard. The Post-Star needs to descend from the bully pulpit and get back to its number one responsibility to the community: reporting news.

This article was published as part of a collaboration with the AdirondackAlmanack.

The Post-Star's war on underage drinking (part 1)

by contributor Mark Wilson

Ken Tingley is back in his bully pulpit. Two Sundays ago in his weekly column, the Editor of the Post-Star defended his newspaper’s policy of publishing the names of teenagers ticketed for violating underage drinking laws. In blunt and patronizing language, the crusading editor took on a recent South Glens Falls High graduate who had dared to leave a comment on the Post-Star's Facebook page objecting to the policy:

Mr. Mumblo was probably playing video games and reading comics when we reported the death of 17-year-old Jason Daniels in Warrensburg on May 18, 2003, and four months later, the death of 19-year-old Adam Baker, also in Warrensburg.

The policy was best described in a harsh editorial that ran on June 12, 2011, nearly eight years into the campaign:

Underage drinkers get their names in the paper. We publish the names of all kids arrested for consuming alcohol. We hope the embarrassment factor helps serve as a deterrent to parents and their kids. Not only does the kid’s name go in the paper, it goes on our website. And the Internet is permanent. So whatever they get caught doing today will follow them the rest of their lives.

From this it is hard to tell if the editorial board is angrier at the kids or their parents. The editorial proceeds to insult the children it hopes to protect:

Kids fib... Kids are lightweights... Kids are reckless... Kids are terrible drivers.

The final line of the editorial—A dead child is gone forever—reveals that the true target of the editorial (and the policy for that matter) is the parents; the humiliation of the children is merely a baseball bat to the gut to get their parents to pay closer attention.

Some HistoryOn June 15, 2003, as New York State prepared to drop the DWI blood alcohol content standard from .1 to .08 percent, and after a succession of fatal underage drunk driving accidents in the region surrounding Glens Falls, Ken Tingley wrote a column outlining the Post-Star's policy on reporting crimes:

Here is what are (sic) policies are now:

• We don't use the name of the child under age 16 charged with any offense - even if it is a felony - but we include the age, sex and town of residence. One exception: We will publish the name of any minor who is being prosecuted as an adult.

• We don't use the name of the child age 16, 17 and 18 if they are only charged with misdemeanors or violations, but we include their age, sex and town of residence.

• We do use the name of minors age 16, 17 and 18 if they are charged with felonies.

• We do use the name of anyone 19 or older charged with any offense if the crime is deemed newsworthy because of unusual or interesting circumstances.

• We've also left it up to the discretion of the editor to print the name of a minor if major crimes or unusual circumstances are involved.

The column concluded with hints of transition:

With the recent debate over underage drinking in our communities, we debated recently whether it might do some good to start listing the names of teens arrested for underage drinking. We currently do not print those names unless there is a felony charge.One of our editors suggested that we should print the name of all teens arrested, that the embarrassment of arrest might be an appropriate deterrent for a young person, that it might even bring a weightier meaning to some parents who don't seem to take the issue that seriously.It is something we will probably be looking at in the future.

The future arrived less than five weeks later when the Post-Star published the names and ages of six minors from Corinth who were charged with “the noncriminal violation of possession of alcohol by someone under 21.” The policy has remained in effect ever since.

According to data compiled by New York State, in 2003 the number of underage drivers involved in alcohol-related accidents in Saratoga, Warren and Washington Counties stood at 19. The number rose to 25 the following year and dropped to 17 in 2004. In both 2005 and 2006 the number of underage drunk drivers involved in accidents shot up to 42 and has been declining steadily toward the 2004 level since. 2010 is the latest year for which the state has compiled statistics.

In June 2008 after another cluster of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involving minors, the Post-Star ran an exasperated editorial under the headline “Message is not getting through.” It began:

We give up.

No one seems to be listening anyway.

Sanctimonious and preachy? Out of touch with reality? OK, we concede. You're right. Underage drinking is a rite of passage. A tradition. We all did it as kids. There's nothing that can be done to stop it. Kids are gonna do what kids are gonna do.So have it your way.

Naturally, the editorial does not give up and charges once more unto the breach to deliver the message. It ends with a poignant appeal to the reader not to let the newspaper abandon the crusade.

By this point, nearly five years along, the policy of outing teenagers charged with non-criminal alcohol violations —despite the absence of any evidence that it was doing any good— was so conflated with the broader cause of stopping underage DWI as to be inseparable. For all practical purposes, under guard of the sharp hyperbole of the Post-Star’s editorial position, unquestionable.

This article was published as part of a collaboration with the MoFYC blog.

Next, Part 2: Questioning the Unquestionable

Lushes (of the non-teen variety) have an advocate on the corner of Cooper and Lawrence

Editorials speak not just about the positions of a newspaper, but about its priorities. As I've mentioned on this blog many times, New York state electoral law is badly rigged in favor of Democrats and Republicans (as well as their factions: the fake parties of the Working Families and Conservative Parties) by putting obscene hurdles to participation by smaller parties and independents.

The Post-Star has often espoused as "throw the bums out" editorial line with regard to the legislature in Albany but has never seen fit to link that to broader electoral reform that would enable much-needed real multipartyism. Yet yesterday, the daily ran what is at least their second editorial denouncing bureaucratic problems of the state Liquor Authority; there have been several investigative news articles on the topic as well.

Based on their editorial judgement, having increased options to buy a bottle of Wild Turkey or Absolut seems a far more important priority to the paper than multiparty democracy.

This is particularly ironic considering that one of their other editorial crusades is against teen... drinking.

Excuses are like...

I wrote earlier this week about The Post-Star's publication of the name of a Fort Edward football player accused of public urination and fleeing police who tried to question him about it. This despite the fact that the paper has a policy of not publishing names of people under 18 charged with misdemeanors or less.

When I posted this query on the paper's website about this apparent hypocrisy, an editor responded as follows:

There are a couple of reasons why we chose to run his name. First, our policy is that we 'generally' don't run the names, but we make exceptions in special cases where the arrest is of an unusual nature or interest. In this case, the player was indeed charged with a crime -- a misdemeanor count of resisting arrest. It carries a jail term of up to a year. This was not a routine arrest; it involved a police chase in which an officer was injured. In addition, a superstar football player in a sports town like Fort Edward at sectional time can be considered a public figure, and therefore his arrest is of interest to the general public. And finally, we have a separate policy in which we do publish the names of minors who have been arrested for drinking-related crimes. The justification is that the threat of publishing names might discourage some minors from drinking and discourage some parents from hosting parties in which alcohol is served to minors.

The main point is legitimate, although I'm not sure I'm convinced. The last point, however, is ridiculous.

According to this policy, the paper will not publish the names of minors accused of sex crimes or assault, provided it's not a felony.

A kid was recently arrested by the FBI and state police for posting a message on the Internet that indicated someone intended to infiltrate the Queensbury High School with firearms.

Police did not release the name of the kid but an editor stated that even if the authorities had released the name, the paper wouldn't have published it.

The editor stated that 'a case involving a 13-year-old is a completely different matter than one involving a 17-year-old.'

Yet, there's also a difference between a kid who implicitly threatens a Columbine-style massacre and a kid taking a leak on a public street.

Apparently the paper sees a more compelling public interest in discouraging a 17 year old from having a beer than a 13 year old from threatening gun violence in a school.

Disgraceful.

That said, the reaction to the paper's coverage of the Fort Edward case was equally shameful. As anyone could have predicted, there were legions of apologists out in force for the drunk football player.

Awww, he's just a kid and kids do stupid things.

He was just celebrating a "MAJOR milestone" of winning a big game.

Everyone has "been deluded by the politically correct police...."

There was even a thread which blamed the volleyball team.

Umm... yea.

Forget for a moment whether you think it's a big deal for the kid to be drinking.

The fact of the matter is that athletes in Fort Edward (and most other schools around here) agree to a code of conduct promising, among other things, not to drink.

There are no exceptions for "MAJOR milestones."

There is no loophole allowing a football player to blame the volleyball team.

I don't want the kid crucified but I think the punishment by the school is appropriate.

But the message that some people are really sending to ALL the kids in Fort Edward is that it's ok for your word to mean nothing. It's ok for your promise to be worthless, so long as there's a "MAJOR milestone" involved. It's ok to sign something without reading it or with no intention of following it. You must follow certain standards of behavior, except if you're winning.

No wonder there are so many problems in Fort Edward if this is the message the so-called responsible adults are sending.

Post-Star outs minor in violation of its own policy

Recently, there was another alcohol controversy regarding a star athlete in Fort Edward.

A player for their football team was arrested for allegedly urinating on a public street and running from cops who tried to question him.

The player was suspended for two games by the school, the state quarterfinal and (potentially) the state semifinal, for violation of the school's athletic code of conduct.

Earlier this year, their star basketball player was spotted in pictures on the Internet attending a party where kids were drinking alcohol, another violation of the code of conduct. This long, drawn out fiasco was played out during the basketball team's run to the state final. No one was suspended.

So at least school officials learned from their PR black eye and did the right thing this time.

Not surprisingly, some people in Fort Edward are again blaming the newspaper, claiming they have a vendetta against the town and the school, blah blah blah. Hey Fort Edward, if your star athletes are lushes, it's not the daily's fault, it's the parents' fault! And don't complain to the paper if every corner of your downtown smells like piss.

However, there was one legitimate question raised about the paper's coverage this time around (just like last time).

One commenter to the online article asked, "I thought it was the policy of the POST-STAR not to list the names of underage people who have been arrested?"

And he's right. Many articles on alleged underage criminal behavior (such as this one) contain the disclaimer, "The Post-Star generally does not publish the names of those under 18 charged with misdemeanors or less."

The football player was charged with two non-criminal violations and a misdemeanor.

So why was his name plastered all over the paper?

The disclaimer does include the key word 'generally,' which is a pretty broad and vague loophole.

But no where did the paper explain why an exception was made in this case.

Yes, conspiracy theorists are running wild claiming The Post-Star hates Fort Edward, the school, etc. They have a vendetta. They want to tar and feather this poor kid to make an example out of him.

I suspect the paper's counterproductive editorial crusade against teen drinking is affecting its coverage of news stories. Most journalists will swear up and down that editorial positions do not affect news coverage. I can accept that the editorial positions of a newspaper may not affect HOW news stories are covered but I firmly believe that editorial positions often affect WHAT news stories are covered, HOW OFTEN and HOW MUCH PROMINENCE is given to each (front page vs the bottom corner of page B13).

The Post-Star provided no explanation why it ignored its own policy and chose to publicly flog this minor for actions which were stupid, disgusting and, yes, criminal but hardly a threat to public safety (he was on foot). As long as the daily refuses to provide an explanation for its apparent hypocrisy, the conspiracy theorists will thrive.