Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
MEDIA RELEASE: Road safety in the cannabis era
At CAA South Central Ontario, what we're focused on, day in and day out, is how to keep our roads and road users safe. One of our objectives is dispelling common myths about cannabis. This includes the claim that driving under the influence of cannabis is safer than driving after consuming alcohol or the belief that cannabis can sharpen one's ability behind the wheel. The potential for a collision increases in direct proportion to THC levels (the main intoxicant in cannabis) in our body. This means that cannabis significantly impacts the driver's cognitive and motor functions, which in turn affects decision-making and judgment. We must remember that driving is a privilege, not a right. The legal response to impairment is strict and swift. But we must also keep in mind that, much like our education around seatbelts and alcohol, it will take time to change habits. It's important to be smart with our choices and to tap into the lessons we've already learned. This includes appointing a designated driver if you're planning on using cannabis, finding an alternative to get to your destination and ensuring we have conversations around the dangers of cannabis with new drivers in our families. Communities across Ontario are working hard to keep our roads safe. Today we face tremendous opportunity to ensure we continue on that path, but our goal is only possible if we make public education key to our efforts. We hope you join us.
Record freezing temperatures and global warming – let our experts explain
This week has seen temperatures drop to record lows. Across the mid-west, a polar vortex coupled with biting winds saw temperatures plunge below minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit. As the word has been focusing on climate change, its causes and effects – this week stands as a stellar example of the impacts of global warming. Despite the tweets and trolls of prominent politicians somehow aligning a deep freeze as a counter argument for climate change the evidence is becoming more clear - with global warming, comes warnings far more worrisome. Dr. Pamela Grothe, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Mary Washington, was recently quoted in the Guardian about how global warming is forecasting a grim future at the rate we are going. “Warmer temperatures and associated lower oxygen levels in the ocean are sufficient to explain the observed extinctions we see in the fossil record”, she says. “We are already seeing warming ocean temperatures and lower oxygen in many regions, currently affecting marine ecosystems. If we continue in the trajectory, we are on with current emission rates, this study highlights the potential that we may see similar rates of extinction in marine species as in the end of the Permian.” And is this just the beginning? What other extremes can we expect to see in our weather? Can that trajectory Dr. Grothe reference be turned around or slowed down? And what species are the most vulnerable and what ripple effect will that have on our oceans? There are a lot of questions to be asked – and that’s where the experts from the University of Mary Washington can help. Dr. Pamela Grothe is an assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences as the University of Mary Washington. She recently completed a Ph.D. in the Paleoclimatology Lab at the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences department at Georgia Institute of Technology. Her current research involves a study of the central Pacific climate and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability over the past 6000 years through the analysis of coral fossil records. She’s an #expert in climate change and is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Empowered Storytelling Geared Toward Women Is a Winning Combo for Super Bowl Ads, Baylor Expert Says
Television advertisers who have chosen to appeal to women fans and viewers during this weekend’s Super Bowl have committed their millions of dollars to a wise strategy, according to a Baylor University marketing and advertising expert. Tyrha Lindsey-Warren, Ph.D., clinical assistant professor of marketing in Baylor’s Hankamer School of Business, studies consumer behavior and attitudes, multicultural media and advertising, and movies and entertainment. Each year, she and her students analyze the Super Bowl ads. And each year, she said, she sees more ads geared toward women. In fact, AdAge reports that brands like Bumble, Toyota and Procter & Gamble's Olay are featuring women in lead roles in their Super Bowl commercials this year. “That’s smart,” Lindsey-Warren said. “The current and future market power of women – as a whole and by segments – is undeniable and truly cannot be ignored by marketers.” To make her point, she cited research showing that women influence more than 80 percent of all consumer spending; 89 percent of the financial decisions are made by women; and globally, women control more than $20 trillion in world-wide spending. In addition, nearly 24.3 million African American women are brand loyalists and cultural trendsetters who have influence over the $1.2 trillion dollars in black spending power. Forbes reported in 2018 that “women constituted about 49 percent of the 108 million-plus people who watched” that year’s Super Bowl – and paid closer attention to the ads. “Nowadays, whatever brands plan to do during the Super Bowl must be extremely strategic and well planned when commercials go for over $5 million dollars,” Lindsey-Warren said. “With the #metoo and #times up movements as well as the diversity and gender issues in advertising industry and more, I think brands struggle as to how they approach targeting women on such a global stage.” She said brands that use “empowered storytelling” – storytelling that exudes the emotion of empowerment – make a difference. Good examples, she said, are Always’ “Like a Girl” commercial in 2015 and Audi’s “Daughter” commercial in 2017. “In my research, especially among Millennials and Gen Z, this approach is a powerful combination for brands who want to increase purchase intentions for their products or services,” Lindsey-Warren said. “The emotion of empowerment is multidimensional and promotes encouragement and can be extremely motivational,” she said. “When one is empowered, it can be an ‘aha’ moment and very transformational in a positive manner. In addition, empowered storytelling is a proactive approach to storytelling that demands you keep the receiver of the story in mind at every stage of the process because, at the end of the day, you want the receiver of the story to be better in some way for having received the empowered narrative they just viewed or experienced.” And when consumers are empowered, they tend to tell others. In the digital space, this looks like sharing videos, posts, quotes and more on social media channels. “Essentially, empowered storytelling gives brands the opportunity to achieve the right balance of entertaining and encouraging and, ultimately, healing by showing that they care for their consumers through the motivational messages and narratives they are producing,” Lindsey-Warren said. ABOUT TYRHA LINDSEY-WARREN, Ph.D. Tyrha Lindsey-Warren, Ph.D., is a marketing scholar, business executive, artist and entrepreneur. As a consumer behavior scholar, her research is rooted in narrative transportation theory (i.e., storytelling) that exudes the emotion of empowerment and its impact on consumer attitudes, behaviors, purchase intention and message recall. She also studies health edutainment, multicultural media and advertising, as well as movies and entertainment. Lindsey-Warren is an expert in effective communications strategies for leaders, multicultural communications and marketing. Her latest research, “An Examination of Television Consumption By Racial and Ethnic Audiences in the U.S.,” was published in the Journal of Advertising Research. She will be discussing this study during panel discussions in New York City and Los Angeles for the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 17,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through the efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 80 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions. ABOUT HANKAMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business provides a rigorous academic experience, consisting of classroom and hands-on learning, guided by Christian commitment and a global perspective. Recognized nationally for several programs, including Entrepreneurship and Accounting, the school offers 24 undergraduate and 13 graduate areas of study. Visit www.baylor.edu/business and follow on Twitter at twitter.com/Baylor_Business.
The Fed Should Consider Lowering Rates say the Experts from University of Rochester
On Wednesday, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve will be delivering another interest rate decision that could direct or at least prompt a punch to the arm the country’s economy. In fact, according to Narayana Kocherlakota who is currently a Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester, and who also served as the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009-2015 – the Fed should be dropping rates to increase stimulus t an economy in very much in need of help. In a column (see attached) published this week in Bloomberg Opinion, Kocherlakota offered this perspective, So, the Fed has been falling short — arguably well short — of both its inflation and employment mandates for a long time. How can it do better? It should take two steps. First, as I’ve argued before, the Fed shouldn’t be reducing the vast holdings of bonds that it amassed in its efforts to stimulate the economy after the last recession. Instead, it should commit to increasing its asset holdings by about 4 percent per year. That way, as the economy grows over time, its balance sheet will remain sufficiently large to help combat any recessionary risks. Second, the Fed often says that it sets monetary policy based on the incoming economic data. Such claims ring hollow when we look at the record. Recently released transcripts from its June 2013 policy-making meeting show that more than half the participants thought inflation would be below 2 percent for the next 30 months. All thought unemployment would stay above 5.5 percent. Yet it was precisely at that meeting that they agreed to begin tightening by announcing their intention to ease off on bond purchases in the near future.” So, what can we expect from Wednesday’s decision by the Fed? Will we see a drop in rates? What will a higher interest rate look like and what would that mean for America’s economy? Or … if nothing changes and the Fed holds steady, what will that mean for the economy in the short term? There are a lot of questions and that’s where the experts from the University of Rochester are available. Dr. Narayana Kocherlakota was the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009-2015. As part of his responsibilities in that position, he served on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the monetary policymaking arm of the Federal Reserve System. He is currently a Lionel W. McKenzie Professor of Economics and is an expert in financial economics, interest rates and monetary policy. Narayana is available to speak with media regarding the economic effects of the shutdown – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Is Washington playing Russian roulette with airline safety?
The government shutdown that is finally over had some worrying near the end and for good reason. Air traffic controllers, the very professionals who keep planes in the air and at a safe distance from each other had gone for more than four weeks without getting paid. Exhausted, demoralized and depleting ranks were probably the near-perfect storm for an imminent accident or disaster. Luckily, and thankfully, these dedicated professionals rose to the occasion and ensured safety was still the priority. Often, working even while the very equipment and technology they rely on was not being serviced. But as the shutdown takes a break for three weeks and everyone is made whole with back-wages and paychecks – does America need to rethink the potential risks and consequences to having the staff who are essential to safety across the entire country go without pay and benefits during a political dispute? The consequences of a major airline crash are huge economically and in terms of lives lost. So, can the nation’s air traffic controllers be exempt form the impacts of a government shutdown? Who would have been liable if an accident did occur? Are aviation, customs and our nation’s airports not considered essential and therefore worthy of being paid during a shutdown? And how close did we come to a disaster? While we wait and watch for a solution in Washington over the coming weeks, there are still a lot of questions to be answered, and that’s where the experts from the University of Rochester can help. David M. Primo is the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor and an associate professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester. He is an expert in airport safety and security and a professor at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, and can comment on airline safety and passenger impacts amid airports such as Laguardia International restricting air travel due to the government shutdown. David is available to speak with media regarding the economic effects of the shutdown – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
With a long road ahead, it's already a crowded field for DNC hopefuls
On Monday California Senator Kamala Harris told the nation she’s running for president against Donald Trump in 2020. Harris is now one of four females who have all but thrown in their hat including fellow Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand along with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Also kicking the tires are Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro and New Jersey Congressman John Delaney. That’s five candidates, each with impressive resumes. And it is still very early. Some are expecting heavy hitters like Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Brooker and potentially a third try by Hillary Clinton to all take their shot against a potentially vulnerable President Trump. There’s still along way to go between now and July 2020 when the party picks its candidate, and odds are this will seem a lot more like a marathon than a sprint. However, with a strong field already, there are a lot of angles to consider: Is declaring this early an advantage or disadvantage for candidates? Just how much money will be needed to secure the nomination this time? Does a candidate like Harris risk peaking too early if declared the frontrunner this far out? Who else is lurking in the weeds that few might consider? Lastly, there’s public support and there are super-delegates. Does the candidate still need to be the party favorite to have a chance at winning? That’s where the experts from the University of Mary Washington can help. Rosalyn Cooperman, is an associate professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington and member of Gender Watch 2018, is an expert on women in politics. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington. Author of six books on the presidential elections, the media and the presidency, he is available to speak with media regarding this issue. Simply click on either expert’s icon to arrange an interview today.
It seemed all of America tuned in Tuesday evening at 9 PM Eastern to hear just what President Donald Trump had to say as he spoke to a nation caught in the middle of a government shutdown. With federal services all but stagnant across the country, and those employees considered essential forced to work without pay, most expected a pitch to a nation that included a solution and ideally a moderated and mature speech. After all, there is a lot at stake for every American who is either employed by, engaged with or in need of the federal government. However, that was not the case. What did come was a short speech that was long on rhetoric, blame and ultimatums instead of resolution. In the past, when addressing the nation, a President would do so to share information of national importance, like Obama’s speech about the killing of Osama Bin Laden or Ronald Reagan speaking to America about the Iran-Contra Hearings. These were big deals with a significant message. Speaking with Canada’s national broadcaster, University of Mary Washington’s Stephen Farnsworth had this observation to share. “By taking such partisan swipes from the grandeur of the Oval Office during a prime-time address, Trump runs the risk of "overexposure," or of being accused of cheapening a time-honoured tradition, said Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor with the University of Mary Washington who specializes in presidential communications. It's not clear whether the president's speech will have any impact on the border security stalemate. But Trump's speech may even have implications for future Oval Office broadcasts, Farnsworth said.” So, what was gained by the address? Did President Trump essentially ‘cry-wolf’ and cheapen the significance of a national address? Or did it serve his purpose and support his base? And, did the Democrats blow an opportunity to effectively respond? There will be a lot of analysis of Tuesday’s TV-time and that’s where the experts from the University of Mary Washington can help. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington. A published author and a media ‘go-to’ on U.S. politics, he is available to speak with media regarding this issue. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Big trouble in Little Taiwan? Our experts weigh in.
It won’t be just America that faces a heated and high-stakes election in 2020, the small country of Taiwan is also at political cross-roads and its future could hang in the balance. To look back, just over two years ago, the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won a major victory in both the presidential and the legislative elections over the Nationalist Party or Kuomintang (KMT) in Taiwan. KMT’s pro-China approach was thoroughly rejected by voters. However, recent elections saw a serious shift back in opinions toward the KMT’s favor, delivering a severe blow to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. In a recent Financial Times piece, added her perspective. “Elizabeth Freund Larus, a Taiwan expert at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia, said China would probably seek to capitalize on a series of DPP losses in local elections in November to sow discontent among Taiwanese and boost support for the China-friendly opposition party, the Kuomintang, ahead of the 2020 presidential election. “China’s leaders are like sharks in the water: they smell blood,” she said.” Taiwan seeks to bolster international support after China threats (Financial Times) So, what lies ahead for Taiwan? Will China meddle or push for KMT support? Can it be stopped? Will there be international support against Chinese interference? How will China react? And is this a political hot potato that could play into the upcoming US primaries and elections? There’s a lot out there that just not known, and that’s where our experts can help. Elizabeth Larus is a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington and is an #expert on China and the field of Asian studies. She is available to speak to media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Starting January 2019, the stakes will be even higher when it comes to distracted driving in Ontario. CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO) is reminding Ontario drivers that strengthened distracted driving laws will take effect January 1, 2019. New additions include licence suspensions, increased demerit points and an increase to the minimum financial penalty that can be charged to those guilty of distracted driving. "CAA fully supports the increased fines and penalties that will be in place for distracted driving starting tomorrow,” said Elliott Silverstein, manager, government relations, CAA SCO. “Hopefully these new rules will encourage motorists to remain focused on the road and keep devices far from reach when operating their vehicle." Distracted driving continues to be a challenge on Ontario's roads, nearly a decade after the initial legislation banning handheld devices was passed. This new legislation is the first increase since September 2015 when demerit points were added to distracted driving convictions. Recent CAA research shows that one in three Ontario drivers claim to engage in distracted driving as a result of using a mobile device. According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, one person is injured in a distracted driving collision every half an hour. “The new fines and penalties are some of the strongest in the country, and they will further aid law enforcement in their continued effort to make road conditions safer for everyone,” continued Silverstein. Starting January 1, 2019, Ontario drivers can expect the following fines and penalties if caught driving distracted: The minimum financial penalty will increase from $490 to $615. A first conviction for distracted driving will now result in a three-day licence suspension, three demerit points and a minimum financial penalty of $615. A second conviction will result in a financial penalty of up to $2000 (previously up to $1000), six demerit points and a seven-day licence suspension. For third (or more) convictions, drivers will face a financial penalty of up to $3000 (previously up to $1000), six demerit points and a 30-day licence suspension. CAA recommends the following tips to reduce distractions behind the wheel: Turn off mobile devices Stow and secure loose objects Avoid eating, drinking or smoking Prepare children with everything they need Pre-set the climate control and radio Pre-program your route on GPS Allow phone calls to go to voicemail Don't text, surf the web or read emails CAA is dedicated to helping change certain rules and regulations for Ontario’s roads that will improve safety for everyone who uses them. Through its road safety efforts, CAA has been helping to educate and bring awareness about distracted driving, Slow Down, Move Over rules and cycling safety laws.
MEDIA RELEASE: CAA launches cannabis education campaign, geared towards a younger demographic
This holiday season will be the first time Ontarians will consume cannabis legally. Many of those experimenting will be young adults, who according to our research, are more likely to mix alcohol and cannabis together. In response to the new laws and research, CAA has launched a cannabis education campaign called #DontDriveHigh. The campaign is geared towards novice drivers to remind them that even though cannabis is legal, it’s not harmless, especially in situations where reaction time, motor skills and judgment are critical. Driving high is driving impaired. “Just because you think you may be able to drive while high, doesn’t mean you should,” said Teresa Di Felice, assistant vice president, government relations, CAA SCO. “It’s important to remember that if you are going to consume alcohol or cannabis, find an alternative to driving so you can arrive where you’re going safely.” CAA’s research shows that there is a gap in awareness of the effects of using cannabis, specifically, in young men. Men aged 25 to 34 are the most likely to drive under the influence of cannabis. Many are novice drivers who live in busy, urban areas. “Our research shows that many Ontario drivers believe that there is a strong need for public education around cannabis legislation,” said Teresa Di Felice. “Our campaign aims to educate young drivers with fun yet thought-provoking videos.” CAA SCO worked with The Turn Lab, to create a series of videos demonstrating the impact cannabis has on concentration, coordination, reaction time, and decision making. CAA believes that education is one of the most critical elements to help Ontarians understand the issues surrounding cannabis legislations and safety. If you are writing about cannabis and road safety – we can help. Teresa Di Felice is the Assistant Vice President of Government & Community Relations at CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO), Canada's largest CAA Club. She has been with CAA since 2005. She is responsible for the overall direction and execution of the organization’s advocacy strategies and programs, representing and raising awareness on relevant issues to CAA’s over 2 million Members and with policymakers in Ontario.