It appears my article about a crew member for “The Hunting Ground” editing Wikipedia to boost the film has ruffled some feathers, as the editors for the film’s website have published a “fact check” of what I wrote.
It’s more of a response than a “fact check,” but the phrase “fact check” is thrown around so much these days it doesn’t really matter. The response comes after I exposed crewmember Edward Patrick Alva’s Wikipedia edits that involved the film.
They begin by calling me an “opinion columnist.” Thanks, guys! I’ve wanted a title promotion for months, but currently I am just a lowly commentary writer who occasionally writes a column. (Though I would like to point out that they spelled my name correctly; that’s more of a feat than I think they realize.)
The filmmakers claim that my headline is inaccurate and that Alva was not “caught” doing anything, that he was upfront about his associations with the film. Well, he was “caught” in the sense that people watching the film and having it billed to them as a “documentary” (we’ll get to that in a minute) were unaware that a crew member was altering Wikipedia to make facts conform to the film.
Also, the filmmakers claim that I inaccurately suggested he didn’t disclose his connection until September. This is just not true. Here are the relevant paragraphs from my article:
I specifically wrote that he acknowledges his conflict of interest. I never said he didn’t disclose his connection, what I wrote was that it wasn’t until six months after he created his profile that he acknowledged he had been editing pages related to “The Hunting Ground” and various related pages. In his original bio he mentioned working for the “The Hunting Ground” but mentioned his conflict of interest in relation to “Chain Camera Pictures,” which doesn’t mean much to anyone. But mentioning the specific pages he edited in relation to “The Hunting Ground” does mean something.
The filmmakers then claim that they took “great care to respect Wikipedia’s principles and values” and said “prior to our colleague’s engagement, we agreed that the goal was to improve Wikipedia according to its own standards, not to boost the film.”
I guess I could write another article about how the filmmakers conspired to edit Wikipedia and that it was not the actions of a rogue crewmember. The filmmakers wrote that they sought out “a qualified Wikipedia agency” before making the edits, meaning this was a conscious decision by the filmmakers to go into Wikipedia, knowing there was a conflict of interest, and edit pages related to the film and campus sexual assault.
It’s also hard to keep a straight face when they say they didn’t do this to boost the film when mention of the film was inserted into several Wikipedia pages, including one about Title IX (the law being used to force colleges to adjudicate campus sexual assault) and “the anti-rape movement.”
The filmmakers also in this section call themselves “documentary filmmakers,” as they have done in the press to bring legitimacy to their film. Privately, however, and while making the film, they acknowledged that they are not documentary filmmakers but advocacy filmmakers.
“We do not operate the same way as journalists — this is a film project that is very much in the corner of advocacy for victims, so there would be no insensitive questions or the need to get the perpetrator’s side,” wrote one of the film’s investigators, Amy Herdy, in an email to an accuser’s lawyer.
The filmmakers assert that what Alva did “not only met but exceeded Wikipedia’s standards for disclosure.” That’s up for discussion, and is currently being discussed by Wikipedia editors. Some editors think that what he did clearly broke Wikipedia guidelines. Others think that what he did might not technically have been wrong but that the policies should be updated because they believe what he did shouldn’t be tolerated. Still others think he did nothing wrong.
I fully expect nothing to come of the discussion.
Regardless, what Alva did has clearly sparked a discussion. And even if he didn’t technically break the guidelines for some of his edits, the appearance of a major conflict cannot be ignored and I believe I rightly pointed that out. (Full disclosure: I have a conflict of interest when it comes to defending my own writing.)
The filmmakers defend the editing of former Florida State University quarterback Jameis Winston’s Wikipedia page by suggesting they were merely fixing a “skewed” page. (Full disclosure: I graduated from FSU years before Winston played.)
What Alva did when editing Winston’s page was to include the sexual assault allegation in the top summary. That allegation, as well as some of his other off-the-field behavior, was already included in a “controversies” section of the page, but Alva (and now we know, by extension, the rest of “The Hunting Ground” crew) wanted to make sure he was partially defined front-and-center on Wikipedia by that accusation. The filmmakers insist that Wikipedia gave “very little attention to his off-field issues,” despite an entire section of his page being devoted to them.
The filmmakers also claim that my article resulted in the previous, “extraordinarily biased version” to be restored, as if Alva’s version wasn’t “extraordinarily biased” itself. The current version mentions problems with the investigation, it’s just not as extreme as Alva or the filmmakers would like.
Finally, the filmmakers point out that I didn’t disclose my own conflict of interest: I’m an FSU graduate.
You got me! I forgot to add the words “my alma mater” when writing that article. You know how the filmmakers knew I was an FSU graduate? Because I disclose it in many other articles relating to “The Hunting Ground” and have never sought to hide that. When I saw them mention that, I was honestly stunned because I’m so used to typing it as part of an “over disclosure” policy that I couldn’t believe it wasn’t in the article.
But it’s not. It’s also, on the list of disclosures, one of the most meaningless. My having graduated from FSU doesn’t negate Alva’s edits or the inaccuracies in “The Hunting Ground.” I have no incentive to defend the school. They’re not paying me, the Washington Examiner is, and I have no ties to the university other than my diploma, which I never even took out of its shipping packaging when it was sent to my parents’ old house (I think it might be in the trunk of my car right now, but haven’t dug through that hornet’s nest in ages. I’ll get my “top men” on the search right away.)
I don’t give the university money and I’m not asked for donations. I don’t attend alumni events or football games. I haven’t even been back to Tallahassee since I graduated. The most interaction I get with regards to FSU is on Twitter or meeting a new person who is also a graduate. “Oh you went to FSU? Me too, what was your major?” End of conversation.
Well, maybe I have an incentive to protect the reputation of my alma mater. I’m at the point in my career where I probably don’t even have to include the school on my resume. And it’s not like I went to “The Harvard of the South.” I went to FSU. The number one response I received from friends when I said I was a student (while I was a student) was: “Isn’t that a party school?” Hardly a prestigious reputation.
The police and school officials who investigated Winston and were FSU graduates have a more believable conflict-of-interest case than I, as one could argue that their salaries are paid for by the business and taxes brought in to the city by the university and its football program. I have no such interest — I don’t even live in Tallahassee.
When I told my editor I forgot to put that in there he rolled his eyes, because I usually include it even though it doesn’t matter.
Still, what a dumb move writing an article about conflict of interest and forgetting to put in even a pointless disclosure! I’ll fix that, because unlike “The Hunting Ground,” I can admit when I make a mistake. (I also found another article where I mention FSU but didn’t include the disclosure, and four others where I did include it.)
It tickles me that the filmmakers think they somehow “got” me by pointing out that I failed to mention what school I graduated from. As if that negates all of the inaccuracies and deception from them.
