Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
The election is on. In fact, it’s as if the campaign of the 2016 election has never come to a finish. U.S. President Donald Trump’s strategy of constant rallies, speeches and campaign stops has essentially meant the Republican incumbent has been on the stump for the better part of almost five years now. On the other side, at one time last year, there were more than two dozen contenders vying for the right to represent the Democrats. That field has been whittled down to about half of that, and it is expected to continue shrinking now that primaries are in play and the financial costs of keeping up will become a reality. So, if there were to be an actual starting point for the November election – this week could be it. On Monday, the Iowa Caucus kicks off what could be months of rigorous and aggressive campaigning for Democrats. The winner Monday will have a huge boost, but after that it’ll be all eyes on New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and then Super Tuesday. Also, this week, the President will deliver the State of the Union. The timing of this speech could be the change of channel the President needs as the clouds of impeachment linger. As well, the speech and the huge audience it gathers could set the tone of what's to come on the campaign trail. For political junkies and journalists – it is going to be a busy nine months. And if you are a reporter covering the primaries, politics and the presidential election – then let our experts help. The team from FAU can help with a variety of topics that will inevitably be part of or influence the policies and platforms of each party and candidate. Kevin Wagner's research and teaching interests include presidential and judicial politics, political behavior and legislative behavior. He is also a research fellow of the FAU Business and Economics Polling Initiative (BEPI). Robert Rabil is an expert in political Islam, terrorism, U.S. foreign policy, and U.S.-Arab relations. Kelly Shannon specializes in the history of U.S. foreign relations, with particular attention to the Middle East and the 20th century. Colin Polsky is trained as a geographer, specializing in the human dimensions of global environmental change. He also oversees FAU's quarterly environmental poll. All of these experts from Florida Atlantic University are available to help with any of your questions or coverage – simply click on an expert’s icon to arrange an interview today.
Curious about who’s cashing in on Superbowl Sunday? Let our experts help!
The big day is almost here! Fans around the world are getting squares ready, chili cooked, and prop-bets placed. Superbowl Sunday is America’s biggest day for television and sports. This year, it will be all eyes on the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers as they land in Miami to prep and promote for Sunday’s kickoff. There’s big money to be made this week, and a lot of it is going around, according to CNBC – last year was a windfall and most expect this year to be even bigger. Super Bowl ad spots are the most expensive on commercial TV in the U.S. by far, with a 30-second slot costing $5.25 million. That works out at roughly $175,000 per second. Last year, the winners of the Super Bowl made an estimated $112,000 each, while their opponents made $56,000 each. Referees, meanwhile, make between $4,000 and $10,000 a game, according to an estimate by CBS, and their annual salary is about $201,000. Stores are set to make $14.8 billion in sales around the game, with most of that money spent on food and drink to consume while watching, according to a survey carried out by Prosper Insights & Analytics for the National Retail Federation last week. That equates to $81.30 per person, up from last year’s $81.17. Are you a journalist covering this Sunday’s big game? If you have questions about the marketing or economics of the Superbowl, the let our experts help with your stories and coverage. Professor Andrew Wonders joined the faculty of the School of Business Administration at Cedarville University in 2013 following a 13-year career in the sport industry. He is an expert in the areas of major sporting events and the business of sports. If you are looking to arrange an interview with Professor Wonders – simply click on his icon to arrange a time.
In this Era of Fake News and Alternate FactsExperts are King
There’s nothing new about fake news. Satirical media outlets such as The Onion have been around for a decade giving us a good laugh. But somewhere in the past 12 months, something changed for the worse. The wool that was being pulled over people’s eyes wasn’t so obvious anymore. Satire and bad humour were replaced by visceral accusations, conspiracies, and smear campaigns. How did we get to this point, and what can be done to stem the tide? A sure sign that we had a problem was a development that was apparent in the last presidential election. New voices were on the national scene branding our traditional media outlets as biased, and elitist. We saw the phrase “mainstream media” become a bigger part of the conversation. Now we have to contend with “fake news.” Unlike traditional journalism fake news outlets deliberately spew wrong information. In an effort to get a story out, mistakes will happen. But in the world of fake news there is no retraction or correction of these mistakes — even when they are exposed as blatantly untrue. Further damage ensues when social media then acts as an enabler as fake news articles get amplified to millions of people, who are clicking away, feeding advertising revenues to these publishers. No matter what your political stripe or where you stood regarding the recent US election, fake news was rampant on both sides spreading false information, invoking anger, and deceiving the public. More recently, a fresher version of fake news has emerged as “Alternate Facts.” A term made famous by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway as she defended the statements made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer who lectured and insisted that the crowd present for President Trump’s swearing-in was “the largest audience ever to It seems that the whole nature of the game has changed almost overnight. Even the White House press gallery isn’t immune to these developments. This week’s Saturday Night Live sketch brilliantly sums up the aversive relationship that we’re seeing develop between the media and the new administration. (Note: For the record, the photo at the bottom is NOT a C-SPAN broadcast. It’s a comedy sketch. It did not really happen. This is NOT Sean Spicer in the photo below — it’s an actor portrayal). Perhaps most ironic for me is how believable fake news can appear to be. A friend of mine, a former investigative journalist commented that “given the outright absurdity of the actual “real” news cycle,” it’s getting hard for people to sort fact from fiction.” Perhaps this says as much about society as it does about media. So Where Does All This Leave Us? Some say the solution is as simple as removing the bias from our news media. The problem is, I know quite a few (real) journalists and they are serious about reporting facts. They work in newsrooms and report the news, they tell stories, but gathering and checking facts are what define them. As they work to a set of professional standards and deliver real information. However, we’re witnessing a massive change in the way that ideas are shaped and communicated to the public. Sadly, the traditional avenues of information flow and the mutual respect that even democratic nation states have had with the media appears to be eroding. There is also a disturbing undercurrent of thought that traditional news organizations are biased, and every outlet is always serving a hidden agenda. Recent events have prompted the need for news organizations to brief their journalists on how to govern themselves in these very “interesting times.” John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards for Associated Press in a recent blog post called for clarity regarding the definition of the so-called “alt-right.” “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them,” writes Daniszewski. Other news organizations are looking at recent events and taking the opportunity to internally brief their journalists. In a recent message to staff, Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler wrote about covering President Trump the Reuters way: “The first 12 days of the Trump presidency (yes, that’s all it’s been!) have been memorable for all — and especially challenging for us in the news business. It’s not every day that a U.S. president calls journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party.” It’s hardly surprising that the air is thick with questions and theories about how to cover the new Administration. So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world. To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. We don’t know yet how sharp the Trump administration’s attacks will be over time or to what extent those attacks will be accompanied by legal restrictions on our news-gathering. But we do know that we must follow the same rules that govern our work anywhere.” Adler goes on to provide a set of rules for the Reuters team that I think are very wise, especially given the current environment. Do’s: Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions. Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one. Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources. Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us. Keep the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles close at hand, remembering that “the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.” Don’ts: Never be intimidated, but: Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us. We may care about the inside baseball but the public generally doesn’t and might not be on our side even if it did. Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too. Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example — and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere. Winning back the public trust — Why Experts Matter Perhaps a way to help reverse this trend is to ask more of our experts within our organizations, and get them to contribute more to these important conversations. It’s about getting our academics, physicians, professionals, and leaders in their respective fields to contribute more to help the media present a more balanced set of perspectives in ways that engage the public. In this new era, it appears that many experts are invisible to the media on a range of big issues such as climate change, economic data, security, crime and healthcare policy. Opinions — not always informed opinions — are taken as fact. People without qualifications are being asked to speak on topics that require years of study, research, and experience. This is why, now more than ever, we need to see a return of intelligence and knowledge to present true facts. Credible Experts Matter Credible sources are vital in helping ensure the proper degree of research has been done. Published work, peer-reviewed studies, as well as policy that has been developed and practised all play key roles in determining an actual expert. Proven credibility cuts through rhetoric. It promotes the delivery and flow of facts as opposed to feeding only one side of a debate. Being Approachable Matters We have to agree that the current sentiment that many have toward traditional institutions and their experts is that they are not providing enough practical information of benefit to the public. The term “ivory tower” comes up frequently to describe environments such as universities and think tanks. While we need these environments of intellectual pursuit they cannot be seen as disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. Transparency Matters Do you know where your information is actually coming from? The flow of money into the development of fake news and so-called “experts” who are pushing agendas is tremendous. We’ve seen it recently with the sugar industry — much like the tobacco industry who literally wrote the book on manipulating and re-wrapping expertise and research in the middle of the last century — setting ideas on nutrition back decades. The market is crying out for a more consistent way to discover and evaluate the credibility of experts. We need a quick and trusted way to review their education, background, publications as well as their affiliations. We need to be able to conduct a front-line background check before we give them the platform to share their perspectives on television, radio, or in print. We need to vet the expert before they reach an audience that relies on the information being communicated to form opinions and make critical decisions that affect their lives. Local News Matters Local media is shrinking. Newsrooms are currently being threatened by constant shifts in both consumption and business models. If we are to promote accurate information and win the war on actual facts, we must make it easier for local journalists to do their jobs. Mainstream media still carries a lot of weight, especially online and television where the nightly news reaches a massive audience. Though the ratings are large, the subject matter doesn’t always resonate with viewers at home. We need to do a much better job helping local media get better access to the experts in our organisations so they can localise issues and tell stories, and do it in ways that everyone can understand. For example, a story on national unemployment numbers has a different context in San Francisco than it does in Flint, Michigan. Climate change is impacting Miami a lot differently than it is in the Great Lake states. In the end, all news is local. Speed Matters News is increasingly a speed game. With social media, a 24-hour news cycle, and the race to be first, time is of the essence. But in this game, haste may not only make waste, the truth may be a casualty as well. Most recently Fox News reported on a violent shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Six people were killed by a lone gunman. Fox News reported that the suspect was of Moroccan origin — that was false. The shooter was in fact of Canadian origin. It wasn’t until the Canadian Prime Minister’s office requested a retraction that Fox walked the story back…but it took almost two full days. In true Canadian fashion, Kate Purchase, Communications Director for Prime Minister Trudeau thanked Fox News. In the meantime, wrong information was shared across multiple platforms and seen by millions of people. This is when having your experts prepared, media-trained, and trusted internally to speak with media is key. In times of emergency and chaos, it may be the words, advice and perspective of a high-level expert that can calm a nervous public, or at the very least, clearly explain a situation and its outcomes with accuracy and trust. So Why Should This Matter to You? If you are focused on building your market visibility and brand reputation, making your organization’s experts more discoverable and responsive to media is as much a function of good public relations as it is a public service. In these days of fake news, alternate facts, and unclear agendas, an unbiased and objective point of view presented by a credible expert may be one of the few remaining pillars of integrity we have left. Experts bring credibility, reliability, and an elevated level of perspective and advice that the public can trust. It’s up to all of us to ensure our thought leaders rise above the fray and help rebuild the trust that is essential to building a civil society. How is your organization working with its experts to respond to these challenges? I’m particularly interested in speaking with communications and media relations professionals in higher education, healthcare and professional services as our team conducts more research in this area. Let us know what you think by sharing below. I read every comment.
It’s all eyes on Africa as the UN looks to find ways to ensure universal health care for all
It was a historic moment earlier this month as the United Nations and African Union pledged to pursue bolds goals that will strengthen global health and provide health care to all across Africa. “The Memorandum of Understanding we have signed today is an important step towards formalizing the cooperation between WHO and the African Union and to implementing the Addis Ababa Call to Action,” said the WHO chief. “The Addis Ababa Call to Action is a powerful commitment from African Union leaders to increase domestic financing for health, and to hold themselves accountable for that commitment”, he added. Following a political declaration on universal health coverage, which was approved in September by all UN Member States, the General Assembly adopted a global resolution to translate that commitment into reality by legislators in 140 countries. November 18 - UN News It’s indeed a bold declaration and one that will require prevention, infection control and affordable delivery of care. Key UN-AU collaboration specifics Provide technical expertise to the African Medicines Agency and create an environment to foster local production of medicines. Strengthen collaboration between WHO and the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – with a particular focus on emergency preparedness, to build defenses against epidemics and other health emergencies. Support the implementation of the Addis Ababa Call to Action on universal health coverage and the AU Declaration on Domestic Financing. The prospects are positive, but delivery will be a challenge, and if you are a journalist covering this topic and need an expert source for insight and perspective – let us help. Dr. Saad Bhamla is an Assistant Professor of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering at the Georgia Tech College of Engineering where he also runs the Bhamla Lab that develops low cost tools for science education and global health. Saad is available to speak to media regarding this topic, simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
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.
As teacher’s hit the picket line in Chicago – will strike winds spread across the rest of America?
School is out and the signs are up as 32,000 public servants are walking the line and leaving more than 400,000 kids at home in the Windy City. According to teachers, the issue is money and job conditions within schools. On the other side, negotiators are saying it is about power and politics as non-mandatory union membership under Janus has some in the organized labor circles trying hard to bring more workers into the union fold. Either way, with that many kids out of school and parents scrambling - all eyes locally and from across America will be on Chicago. “The Chicago teachers’ strike is important, especially because the earlier strike in that city in 2012 clearly set the tone for the increased strike activity taking place across the country in the last few years,” said Katharine Strunk, an education policy professor at Michigan State University. “The topics on the table go beyond traditional bread and butter concerns such as teacher salary and staffing. This reflects the shifting tide in union negotiations. These more expansive negotiations may reflect unions’ reactions to the 2018 Janus ruling, as well as decreases in education funding.” And as the pressure is on teachers and negotiators to come to a deal, there’s more at stake here than just some time off and political squabbling. “Strikes may have long term implications for student learning. There are also substantial equity concerns for families as they need to consider child-care options.” Are you a journalist covering the strike? Then let our experts help with any of your questions and on-going coverage. Katharine Strunk is a professor of education policy and the Clifford E. Erickson Distinguished Chair in Education at Michigan State University. She is an expert in the area of teachers’ unions and the collective bargaining agreements they negotiate with school districts – Katherine is available to speak to media regarding this issue, simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Is war with Iran inevitable – let our expert explain what’s next
Last weekend, the powder keg that is the Middle East may have been ignited. As drones launched an attack on Saudi oil refineries – the world was shocked and now sits on edge. With a sizeable share of the world’s oil production now off-line, fingers are being pointed at who could have attacked the Saudi Kingdom and what punishment no doubt awaits. All eyes immediately shifted to Iran, and media speculation and the sources that feed it seem to be following that lead. “On Monday, a US official told CNN that the US had assessed that the attack originated from inside Iran. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. One regional diplomat told CNN on Monday that while the US has told its allies it has intelligence showing the launch "likely" came from staging grounds in Iran, it has not yet shared the information. "It is one thing to tell us, it is another thing to show us," the diplomat said. Shortly after the attack, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of carrying it out, tweeting Saturday that "Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply." September 17 - CNN There are still a lot of questions to be asked. Why would Iran attack Saudi Arabia in the first place? Is there a diplomatic solution to this? And if war is inevitable, what other countries will be taking sides and with what country? If you are a reporter covering this escalating path towards conflict – let our experts help. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include nationalism and secessionism, 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.
Is this fall’s Virginia election the canary in the coal mine for gun control?
There will be a lot of eyes on Virginia as voters go to the polls to elect its state government this November. Virginia is just one of four states going to the polls this year and it seems like gun-control (or various forms of it) might be a key issue. In fact, Republican Tim Hugo has flip-flopped and is now favoring a Republican drafted “red flag” gun bill that would remove guns from some people considered a risk to themselves or others. Stephen J. Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, said suburban Republicans like Hugo and Miyares are walking a fine line on volatile issues like gun control as Democrats make inroads in those communities. Those Republicans in moderate areas feel pressure to side with their party in larger political battles, such as the one that occurred in Richmond last month, when the GOP leaders abruptly ended the special session. But they also can’t appear to be out of sync with their changing districts on guns and other divisive topics, Farnsworth said. “Delegate Hugo has to do something to appeal to suburban constituents who are moving away from a Republican Party that is represented by President Trump,” Farnsworth said, noting that the delegate won his 2017 election by just 106 votes. “By offering a response on a gun control measure, Hugo is trying to demonstrate to his voters that he is not simply another Republican willing to shut down debate on the issue before the election,” he said. August 17 – Washington Post Could this be a sign of things to come for 2020? Are politicians actually considering gun control on both sides of the aisle? Or is this just another bait and switch by a politician looking to play both sides during a campaign? If you are a reporter covering this topic – let our experts 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.
Are you covering the Harvard admissions case? Our expert can help with your coverage.
It’s a lawsuit that has the eyes of academia watching closely – and the decision that follows could transform the admission process for colleges and universities across the country. Background: The lawsuit, filed by Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Harvard's admissions office holds Asian-Americans to a higher standard and uses a subjective "personal rating" to limit their admission, despite having strong academic records. According to the Associated Press, Harvard said it uses race only as one of many factors to choose from more than 40,000 applicants a year and that race can only help, never hurt, an applicant's chances of being admitted. The case went to trial last November, almost one year ago, and a decision is expected soon. According to Patricia Marin, an expert in higher education policy and issues of inclusion and equity for underrepresented students, “that the judge called both sides back to give a second round of closing statements and ask questions, which isn’t typical, proves she recognizes the magnitude of this case to higher education and society. The court case could have ground-breaking implications that reach far beyond the ivy walls of Harvard and there are a lot of questions still to be asked. Does race play any role in the admission process to prestigious schools like Harvard? Can it be proven that race plays a factor when accepting applicants? How common are ‘personal rating’ tools in the academic community? What will it mean for Harvard if found guilty? What’s the current process at Harvard, and does it need to change despite the outcome of this lawsuit? If you are a reporter covering this ongoing story – then let our expert help with your coverage. Patricia Marin is an Assistant Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. She is also an expert in the areas of higher education policy and issues of inclusion and equity for underrepresented students. Patricia is available to speak with media regarding the ongoing trial involving Harvard – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Not this time, but expect interest rates to get cut soon – our expert can explain why
It was all eyes on the Fed this week, but when it came to decide, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell held U.S. Interest rates steady and unchanged. The pressure was on to lower the rates amid serious concerns that the current trade wars and tariff action could start impacting America’s economy and slow it down. Narayana Kocherlakota, the Lionel W. McKenzie Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester wasn’t surprised by the June decision to remain steady. And with serving six years as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, his expertise and perspective indicates lower rates will come at the next meeting. “I am not expecting a change in policy, which means the interest rates should remain the same. What I am expecting is a lot of discussion, which takes place in secret, about cutting interest rates by a quarter percentage point at their next meeting in July. Why would they do that? The Federal Reserve is tasked with trying to keep inflation at 2 percent and keep unemployment low. Right now unemployment is about as low as it’s been in the past half-century, which is very good. Inflation remains lower than the Federal Reserve would like—it’s been below 2 percent for most of the last seven years. I think they’re mainly worried about risks. There are signs of risk around the world partly due to big variations in trade policy emerging from the White House. So, the Fed is thinking about cutting rates now in order to keep the economy as healthy as possible, if there’s any danger of a recession.” University of Rochester Newscenter. Will lower rates really keep America’s economy humming? Won’t lower rates impact the strong US dollar? And if we are headed toward recession, what else can de done to turn the economy around? There are a lot of questions – and that’s where our experts can help. 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.
