Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
It was a historic election in Georgia that saw changing tastes and shifting tides among voters across the state. The coverage was extensive and the experts from front and center in local and statewide media lending their expert perspectives and opinions to reports and journalists about the results. “A political science associate professor on Georgia Southern’s Armstrong Campus in Savannah says all the women who made history in Tuesday’s election overcame significant obstacles with their campaigns in Bulloch and Chatham counties. “Those three new women beat incumbents and that’s very unusual,” said Dr. Lara Wessel. “So when we see women or men beating incumbents, again we want to look to try to figure out what’s going on behind those election results. “What it says to me is that the citizens of Statesboro and the citizens of Savannah are interested in change.” Dr. Wessel adds that the five women who won elections are much more than trailblazers, they’re local proof female candidates can break through barriers that have held women out of some local political offices for centuries.” November 06 – NBC News Soon, Savannah will be welcoming four new aldermen, and two new alderman-at-large. “It’s majority progressive. It’s majority female. It’s majority community activists. A lot community activists," said Georgia Southern Associate Professor of Sociology Dr. Ned Rinalducci … “We’re going to see a shift to deal with things like affordable housing, homelessness, and less on development and tourism,” said Rinalducci. Rinalducci said the city saw a turnover back in 2015-ushering in more pro-business candidates. He said this election’s shift towards could be a sign of dissatisfaction with voters. “I think clearly there’s some discontent with the priorities of city government previous, and I think that was communicated clearly with yesterday’s election results," said Rinalducci. November 06 – ABC News The coming twelve months are going to be a busy one for political reporters across the state and country. If you are a journalist looking for political experts who can be a solid source of context and perspective for your stories – let us help. Dr. Lara Wessel and Ned Rinalducci are both available to speak to media about politics, elections and issues affecting voters. Simply click on either expert’s icon to arrange an interview. https://fox28media.com/news/local/municipal-election-draws-low-turnout-equates-to-sweeping-changes-in-savannah-races
Kanye West is a master of marketing. It seems, the hip-hop superstar and designer has also crossed over to evangelism. The crowds are enormous and growing each week. In fact, this past Sunday on very short notice – one of his pop-up services attracted close to 6,000 people. The reaction from religious leaders has been mixed. Some are embracing and encouraging anyone who can use their star power to spread the good word. Others are hesitant as some events seem to be exclusive to some and not open to anyone hearing the call. Religion is never an easy topic to cover as a journalist – and if you are a reporter covering – that’s where our experts can help with your stories. Dan DeWitt, Ph. D. is the Director of the Center for Biblical Apologetics and Public Christianity at Cedarville University and is an expert in areas where faith and secularism intersect. Dr. DeWitt is available to speak with media regarding the rising popularity of Kanye West on the religious scene – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Will e-cigarettes and vaping be the next addictions epidemic to sweep across America?
In a recent op-ed, David T. Courtwright, Ph.D., an author and addiction specialist opined that there’s a market to getting people hooked on substances and that e-cigarettes are the next big problem facing America. "I had just finished a new book on addiction when the vaping crisis erupted. The gist of the book is that that globalization, industrialization, mass marketing, digitization, and social media have turned the ancient human preoccupation with disreputable, potentially addictive pleasures into lucrative, commercially normal enterprises. Bad habits have been McDonaldized. Vaping couldn’t have been a more perfect example of this. I call those who help make bad habits routine “limbic capitalists,” a reference to their products’ neural common denominator. Whether they sell junk food, porn, slots, computer games, alcohol, or drugs, they target the limbic system, the brain networks responsible for pleasure, motivation, long-term memory, and other survival functions linked to emotions. Biological evolution shaped the limbic system, which is indispensable for life and reproduction. But cultural evolution and technological change created a trapdoor. The same neural pathways can be exploited — lethally — by entrepreneurs of brain-rewarding products that foster excessive consumption and addictive behavior." October 28, 2019 – STAT There has been growing concern, awareness and news coverage about e-cigarettes and the dangers they present. As well, industry spin-doctors and public health advocates have been in overdrive trying to convince politicians about the pros and cons of legislation and regulation for these products. Are you a journalist covering this emerging issue? Then let the experts from Cedarville help with your coverage. Dr. Marc Sweeney is an expert specializing in drug abuse, prescription drug abuse, Opioid addiction, medical marijuana & related issues. Justin Cole is an expert in clinical pharmacy, Pharmacogenomics, and the pharmacy industry. Both experts are available to speak to media regarding this issue – simply click on either gentlemen’s icon to arrange an interview.
Minority of Twitter users responsible for vast majority of political tweets
Associate Professor of Law David Levine recently lent his expertise to a Washington Post article looking at who is posting tweets about U.S. politics on the popular social media platform. The Oct. 24 article by reporter Marie Baca examined a recent report by the Pew Research Center that found that 10 percent of U.S. adult Twitter users generated 97 percent of tweets mentioning national politics. Those who were most prolific accounted for just 6 percent of all U.S. adult Twitter users, but authored 73 percent of all political tweets, the report found. "It can be quite dangerous if you’re not taking a step back and saying, ‘What do I know about the sources of this information and who or what is behind it?’” — David Levine, associate professor of law Levine, who is the founder of the "Hearsay Culture" radio show about modern technology issues, noted that Twitter users who find themselves in an echo chamber populated by others who mirror their views could take less time to determine the origin or assess the truthfulness of information they receive in that chamber. “It can be quite dangerous if you’re not taking a step back and saying, ‘What do I know about the sources of this information and who or what is behind it?’” he said. “It’s very easy psychologically, especially if you’re coming into it with a particular perspective, to go along with it.” If Professor Levine can assist with your reporting about social media and online extremism, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Professor Levine is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.
Higher education must rediscover the 'service ethic' of teaching
Earlier this autumn, Otterbein University hosted the Democratic National Congress for a debate of its presidential candidates. All eyes from across America and around the world were on Otterbein and it was with that attention that the school’s president John Comerford weighed in with his thoughts on how leaders need to prioritize higher education. “Today the nation’s attention will shift to Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, as we host the next Democratic presidential primary debate. Questions will abound — of the candidates, between the candidates and, afterward, about who may or may not have “won” the night, all in the service of helping voters decide who might be best suited to lead. An important question that should be asked and won’t, however, isn’t for the candidates at all but for higher education: “Are you ready to lead?” Sadly, the answer is, “No.” Make no mistake, I fully expect plenty of discussion about higher education at the debate — its high costs, student debt, workforce shortages and the difficulty of change. I just hope the candidates don’t hold back in calling to account higher education itself simply because we happen to be their hosts. There is plenty of blame to go around with the challenges in higher education today, and higher education institutions themselves own a fair share of it. Perhaps no issue contributes more to higher education’s affordability problems than institutions’ — and parents’ — preoccupation with “prestige.” Exclusivity and selectivity are thought to be hallmarks of quality, which fosters a system that rewards institutions for perpetually raising admission standards and prices. The problem with this is that test scores — the most frequently-used metric for a student’s academic strength — generally track with a family’s income. Students from higher-wealth families have higher test scores and more frequently gain entrance to “selective” institutions, which steadily become less and less diverse. To essentially segregate students by their parents’ income this way, however, is un-American and does nothing to enrich an education or advance quality in research or instruction. It is the inevitable product, though, of a mindset that “selective” and high rankings are the top priorities in higher education. This is a falsehood that needs to be turned upside down…” October 15 – The Hill The rest of the op-ed is attached – and it is well worth the read. But if you are a journalist covering this topic or wish to learn more – then let us help. John Comerford is an expert in higher education, regional and national topics. He is the President of Otterbein University and is available to speak with media regarding higher education in America. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Is Donald Trump playing nuclear chicken with Turkey?
As Elvis Presley used to sing “Wise men say, only fools rush in…” and it seems America’s hasty retreat from northern Syria and its seemingly unprepared rhetoric with Turkey may have landed America in a bit of a pickle. Unbeknownst to most, the United States has an arsenal of nuclear weapons in Turkey, and senior officials are now scrambling with what they can or may have to do. “And over the weekend, State and Energy Department officials were quietly reviewing plans for evacuating roughly 50 tactical nuclear weapons that the United States had long stored, under American control, at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, about 250 miles from the Syrian border, according to two American officials. Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages. To fly them out of Incirlik would be to mark the de facto end of the Turkish-American alliance. To keep them there, though, is to perpetuate a nuclear vulnerability that should have been eliminated years ago. “I think this is a first — a country with U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in it literally firing artillery at US forces,” Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies wrote last week.” October 14 - New York Times It’s quite the conundrum, and if you are a journalist covering this escalating issue – let our experts help. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include comparative politics and international relations theory. Glen is available to speak to media regarding this topic– simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
On August 3, 2019, a white power-inspired gunman killed 24 people and injured 22 others at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, Texas. We tend to understand mass shootings as isolated events committed by “lone wolf” gunmen who might have mental health problems, but what we know about the El Paso gunman – as well as the terrorists who carried out mass killings at the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Center in Christchurch, New Zealand in March 2019, the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, and at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015 – tell a different story. The evidence investigators have complied shows that these white-power terrorists had never met one another, but that they lived in an on-line world created by 4chan, 8chan, and white-power organizations’ websites, where they consumed racist ideas and propaganda that shaped their decision to kill African-Americans, Muslims, Jewish people, and Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. We also know that white-power terrorists have particular goals in mind. Message boards like 8chan reveal a competition among participants about who can top the number of people killed in the last mass shooting. There is also a strong belief expressed on-line that killing racial minorities will foment a race war and allow white-power advocates to create an all-white world. I describe these terrorists as advocates of white power because it is important to understand that “white power” and “white nationalism,” a term often used in the media to describe the perpetrators of recent mass killings and the movement that animates them, are not the same thing. White nationalism calls to mind an effort to shore up the interests of white people within the American nation as it currently exists. The white-power movement, on the other hand, imagines a transnational, Aryan nation of white people living in an all-white world after wiping out non-whites. This might sound far-fetched, but does not mean that those who carry out mass killings in pursuit of this goal are mentally ill. Rather, their actions are the result of a white-power ideology fostered and spread on-line. What is new about how white-power advocates communicate with each other is that some of it now happens on-line. Interaction between racists who never met one another, however, has a long history in the United States. Approximately 4,100 African Americans were lynched between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the 1960s. The white perpetrators of these lynchings lived hundreds of miles apart and often did not know one another, but they were united in a collective effort to enforce Jim Crow white supremacy in the American South (I use “white supremacist” here because white southerners who carried out lynchings did not, broadly speaking, subscribe to white power as the current movement defines it: the creation of a transnational, Aryan nation of white people living in an all-white world after wiping out non-whites). Lynchings were sometimes public events that drew hundreds or thousands of people with the purpose of “teaching” southern African Americans what would happen to them if they violated the rules of Jim Crow. Southern newspapers ran stories that justified lynchings; perpetrators took pieces of flesh, body parts, and hair from lynching victims as souvenirs and passed them around; and white southerners took lynching photographs, turned them into postcards, and mailed them to friends, family, business associates, and fellow travelers in the white supremacist movement. This racist community building had the goal of creating and maintaining white supremacy and, of course, it all happened without the help of the Internet. Communication, whether on-line or through the more traditional means has played an integral role in fostering and perpetuating racial violence and hatred. If you are a reporter covering this topic – let one of our experts help. Dr. Anthony DeStefanis is an associate professor of history at Otterbein University. He specializes in modern U.S. history with an emphasis on labor and the working class and immigration, race, and ethnicity. Dr. DeStefanis is available to speak with media regarding the history of racial violence in America – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
How are Governments Using Artficial Intelligence? How are They Misusing AI?
There has been a lot of talk about artificial intelligence – who is using it, how it works, and what it will lead to. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute professor James Hendler – who was recently named to the newly formed Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Technology Policy Council – penned a piece for The Conversation outlining the danger A.I. could pose to American society if there is not enough oversight. Here are some excerpts: “Artificial intelligence systems can – if properly used – help make government more effective and responsive, improving the lives of citizens. Improperly used, however, the dystopian visions of George Orwell’s “1984” become more realistic. On their own and urged by a new presidential executive order, governments across the U.S., including state and federal agencies, are exploring ways to use AI technologies. As an AI researcher for more than 40 years, who has been a consultant or participant in many government projects, I believe it’s worth noting that sometimes they’ve done it well – and other times not quite so well. The potential harms and benefits are significant...” “...Other government uses of AI are being questioned, too – such as attempts at 'predictive policing,' setting bail amounts and criminal sentences and hiring government workers. All of these have been shown to be susceptible to technical issues and data limitations that can bias their decisions based on race, gender or cultural background. Other AI technologies such as facial recognition, automated surveillance and mass data collection are raising real concerns about security, privacy, fairness and accuracy in a democratic society....” “...As the use of AI technologies grows, whether originally well-meant or deliberately authoritarian, the potential for abuse increases as well. With no currently existing government-wide oversight in place in the U.S., the best way to avoid these abuses is teaching the public about the appropriate uses of AI by way of conversation between scientists, concerned citizens and public administrators to help determine when and where it is inappropriate to deploy these powerful new tools.” Are you a reporter covering AI? Then let us help with your stories and ongoing coverage. Professor James Hendler is the Director of the Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Responding to increased pressure, Facebook has "doubled down" on identifying and removing posts by online extremists and the groups they use to share content. As noted in a recent NBC News article, these increased efforts include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to proactively identify and remove posts and groups that break the rules, and promoting tools that would hold group administrators more accountable for posted content." Megan Squire is a professor of computer science who has conducted extensive research tracking connections between online hate groups and how they leverage social media platforms to recruit new members and spread propaganda. Squire told NBC News that she's skeptical that even these more high-tech efforts will meaningfully curtail the activity of online extremists. “Same stuff, different day,” Squire told NBC News. “Just in the past month, I reported groups calling for a global purge of Islam, extermination of people based on religion, and calling for violence through a race war, and Facebook’s response was that none of these groups was a violation of community standards.” If Dr. Squire can assist with your reporting about social media and online extremism, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Dr. Squire is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.
Until now, it seemed no scandal could stick to President Donald Trump. But after a whistleblower came forward after an awkward conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy – it seems Trump may have finally crossed the line. His request for an investigation by a foreign power into a political, opponent may have been illegal. Trump repeatedly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to work with Attorney General William Barr and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer. At one point in the conversation, Trump said, “I would like for you to do us a favor.” The president’s words set the parameters for the debate to come — just the fourth impeachment investigation of an American president in the nation’s history. The initial response highlighted the deep divide between the two parties: Democrats said the call amounted to a “shakedown” of a foreign leader, while Trump — backed by the vast majority of Republicans — dismissed it as a “nothing call.”… Pelosi announced the impeachment probe on Tuesday after months of resistance to a process she has warned would be divisive for the country and risky for her party. But after viewing the transcript on Wednesday, Pelosi declared: Congress must act.” September 25 – Associated Press This will only be the fourth time in history an impeachment investigation has taken place - and odds are it will dominate the Washington scene for months. But there are a lot of questions to be asked: How long will this take? What does it take to actually succeed? If Trump is impeached by Congress – will the Senate follow? Could he actually be removed from office? And, is this a risk for Democrats who could feed into the Trump narrative of another failed attempt at a witch hunt? There are a lot of questions and that’s where our experts 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 topic. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
