Arizona State University (ASU) researchers grapple with some of the most pressing questions of our modern political landscape — most recently, whether “Shark Week” is guilty of a racism that perpetuates negative perception of sharks.
One of the study co-authors, ASU Postdoctoral Scholar David Shiffman, speculated to The Washington Post that the lack of diversity was purposeful. He pointed out that there were more white male experts and commentators than women, specifically men named “Mike.”
“When there are hundreds of people of color interested who work in this field, [and] when my field is more than half women, maybe it’s not an accident anymore that they’re only featuring white men,” stated Shiffman.
Researchers say Discovery’s programming overwhelmingly featured White men as experts while emphasizing negative messages about sharks.https://t.co/Fs71Qov5WG
The study noted that shark conservation efforts were hindered, in part, by presenting inaccurate facts, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of scientists.
“In addition to the logistical difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans,” stated the study. “Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation.”
The study went on to posit that white men were partly to blame for negative perceptions and limited conservation messaging concerning sharks. Shiffman and five other researchers analyzed 32 years of Shark Week documentaries (272 episodes) to draw their conclusions.
“Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white, mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific experts,” stated the study’s abstract. “While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole, while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad, even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.”
The study broke down “Shark Week” episodes by the rhetoric used, themes, and incorporated research methods, in addition to the demographics of featured experts and commentators. The publication noted that the show often presented non-scientists or those without peer-reviewed publications as experts.
The study also noted that none of the featured hosts or experts used non-binary pronouns or were publicly identified as transgender.
“Inclusion of all identities is critical for the future of STEM and shark science specifically,” stated the study.
AZ Free News reached out to Shiffman for comment. Specifically, we asked for his thoughts on criticisms that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation, if the negative perception of sharks in some way was connected to implicit bias and/or racism, and if his nature as a white man was impacted by the study’s findings.
Shiffman responded that he had no comment, but that he would encourage a read of the entire study rather than “ignorant alt-right criticism” of the Washington Post coverage.
The coverage and content of the study did draw sharp criticism from right-wing circles.
Shiffman also published another diversity-based study in May focusing on representation in a prominent shark and fish academic group: the American Elasmobranch Society. Shiffman discovered in this study that more than half of group members were women, but that over 70 percent of group leadership consisted of men.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
During oral arguments last Monday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) appeared to side with a Christian website designer who is challenging a Colorado law that would force her to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings. The final ruling is forthcoming.
Counsel in the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, is the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). At issue: whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Attorney Kristen Waggoner argued that SCOTUS precedent rejects government-compelled speech like what the state of Colorado wants to impose on graphic artist and website designer Lorie Smith with the threat of “pain of investigation, fine, and reeducation.”
Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson argued that the free speech clause exemption wouldn’t just apply to sincerely held religious beliefs, but “all sorts of racist, sexist, and bigoted views.” Olson claimed that such protections would allow a tech company to refuse to serve 303 Creative LLC because of Smith’s religious beliefs.
Near the end of arguments, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher stated that he wanted the Court to find religious business owner discrimination against same-sex unions to be as odious and invalid of First Amendment protections as racism.
“I don’t mean to equate those who have different views of marriage to racists, but the reason why I rely on those hypotheticals is because this court’s First Amendment jurisprudence does not distinguish between views we find odious and those we respect,” stated Fletcher. “The same principles apply in both places, and if the principles lead to unacceptable places when we consider them in light of odious views, then I think we have to reject those principles even in the case where we sympathize with and respect the views.”
The three liberal justices of the court — Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor — argued that website designers don’t speak through their product. They also argued that extending protection to speech arising from religious beliefs of true marriage would lead to protections for speech arising from discrimination against interracial or disabled couples.
The six conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts — repeatedly revisited the distinction between personalized, custom, commissioned products and goods and services served generally to the public.
Kagan claimed that websites weren’t particularly ideological or religious if there was an absence of explicitly written scripture or ideology. Waggoner disagreed, pointing to the context and message of the speech.
“When you switch out those names, you’re switching out the concept and the message that is in this website,” stated Waggoner. “The same words can convey different meanings.”
Sotomayor insisted that a creator wasn’t issuing speech by merely creating a product like a wedding invitation, but that only the distributor of the invitation was engaging in speech. Sotomayor further indicated that Smith’s work could only be viewed as her speech if she had stated expressly on her business website that her creations constituted her speech. Waggoner disagreed.
“In the same way that is the ghostwriter who writes an anonymous press release or a book. It is still that writer’s speech,” said Waggoner. “I don’t understand. How is this [the creator’s] story? It’s their story. […] It’s the story of the couple.”
Sotomayor questioned if there was a limit to compelling speech, citing examples of marriages between interracial couples or disabled persons. Waggoner said that was different, saying that it was “highly unlikely” that creators would serve certain races of people in certain contexts but not in a marriage.
“You’re not basing it on the nature of the message, you’re basing it on who you’re serving,” argued Sotomayor.
Waggoner contended that Smith has LGBTQ clients for other products, but can’t support same-sex marriage due to her Christian beliefs.
Sotomayor conflated Biblical and non-Biblical issues repeatedly, such as race and ability, insisting that creating content to display representation of a homosexual couple’s relationship wasn’t compelled speech. She compared Smith’s refusal to create a same-sex wedding website to a restaurant owner offering a limited menu to black individuals.
Waggoner said that book authors, newspaper editors, and writers for other types of publications were issuing their speech. Jackson interjected to say that those publication types weren’t “public accommodations in the same way.”
Jackson asked whether a caterer providing food to only Protestant customers would enjoy the same speech protections. She argued that conduct equated speech. Waggoner said no, drawing a distinction between speech and the messaging conveyed through conduct.
Alito questioned whether “plug and play” websites, essentially templates, imposed the same compelled speech issue. Waggoner said that was not the case because a creator wouldn’t be creating speech for the couple.
Barrett asked several hypotheticals: whether Smith would publish a site for a couple who describe their sexuality in a Biblically ambiguous way — “cisgender” and “heterosexual” — or a couple who admitted that they were marrying after cheating on their respective spouses. Waggoner said that Smith wouldn’t.
Waggoner argued that the court offers broad protections for speech arising from personal convictions.
“I think what’s important is the message she’s being asked to create,” stated Waggoner. “She believes that same-sex weddings contradict Scripture. And she’s announcing a concept of marriage that she believes to be false.”
Barrett asked why Smith couldn’t give a homosexual couple a website that was already created for a heterosexual couple. Waggoner said that it wouldn’t be the “same” since Smith would have to incorporate details and photos of the same-sex couple into the site.
“We know context changes meaning, just as Ginsburg said in Yates v. United States,” stated Waggoner.
Barrett asked whether the same could be said of a songwriter licensing an already-published song to a same-sex wedding. Waggoner said that the artist couldn’t because it was already in the stream of commerce, but admitted unfamiliarity with licensing procedures. She clarified that it would be different if the artist were to sing the song at or for the wedding.
Jackson argued that there’s no precedent for this type of case; Olson concurred. Thomas asked Olson to summarize any tradition of public accommodation laws, cases, or common law tradition applying to speech.
“The complicating factor here is this is not a hotel or a restaurant or a riverboat or a train. I’m interested in the intersection of public accommodations law and speech,” said Thomas.
Olson claimed that public accommodation laws don’t carve out exceptions for speech. He said there wasn’t a history of cases in which people asked for these exceptions.
Olson affirmed Sotomayor’s assertion that Smith’s business would be the first public accommodation that could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.
Kagan asked whether Colorado would allow Smith to refuse a same-sex couple’s request to quote Obergefell v. Hodges on their website: the SCOTUS case requiring states to recognize same-sex marriage. Olson said yes, since she would be denying that request for all customers. Then Kagan asked whether Colorado would allow Smith to refuse a same-sex couple’s request to put “God blesses this union” on their website. Olson said that was different because it implicates free exercise of religion concerns.
“It is a statement of opinion about the nature of this marriage,” said Kagan.
Roberts asked why an individualized, subjective, multi-factor determination in foster care and adoption wouldn’t be the same as a seat on a bus or room in a hotel. Olson said that since Smith engages with customers as a public accommodation, she needs to be held to that discrimination-free standard. Olson characterized Smith’s religious dissent as a “status-based discrimination.”
Olson said that Smith’s business would suffer because she would lose opposite-sex couples upset by her refusal to serve same-sex unions. Alito questioned if businesses were allowed to exercise any kind of selectivity; Olson responded that Alito’s hypothetical required a fact-based analysis.
Alito asked further if selectivity conferred a public service status to businesses. Olson affirmed on the stipulation that selectivity was the only factor in their decision-making, noting that selectivity based on protected characteristics like race or sexual orientation wasn’t allowable.
“The more selective and curated the process is, the less likely it is to be a public accommodation,” stated Olson.
Alito asked whether Jewish photographers could be compelled to photograph for customers using the pictures on the website facilitating affairs, Ashley Madison, which prompted laughter. Olson said they could.
“The website designer can choose to put on their websites whatever they want,” said Olson. “But they just can’t refuse to sell — if they’re a public accommodation — they can’t refuse to sell that website to someone solely because of the customer or couple’s religion.”
Alito then asked if it was fair to equate opposition to same-sex marriage with interracial marriage. Olson responded affirmatively.
“Of course honorable people have different views on this issue,” said Olson. “The way to honor that requirement is as this court has set forth in Fulton, in Masterpiece, is to have a rigorous interrogation to make sure that there are neutral and generally-applicable laws applied in fact that way that don’t single out religion.”
Alito then asked if writers could be forced to write customized wedding vows or speeches containing speech that they loathe. Olson said no, because the speech wouldn’t contain offenses against protected classes. He said that “things that people loathe” wasn’t protected like sex, gender, religion, or discrimination.
Gorsuch asserted that Smith’s customized and personalized products were different from offering general services. Olson argued that allowing Smith that freedom of creation would result in every single same-sex couple being turned away, but Gorsuch disagreed.
“Well, they can ask for what they want but what they get might be another thing,” responded Gorsuch.
Gorsuch asked if speechwriters would be held to the same standard as Smith. Olson said Colorado wouldn’t compel that speechwriter to produce work to which they object.
“You can choose the content of what you say, you just can’t choose who you sell to,” stated Olson.
Gorsuch challenged why a speechwriter would be any different from Smith’s company. Olson claimed that Smith wouldn’t sell a wedding site promoting homosexual unions to same-sex couples, but Gorsuch contended that Smith was refusing to sell sites promoting that content to any customer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Within hours of U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement on Friday that she is now a registered independent voter, posturing began for the 2024 election as the public learned just how deep the divide is within the Arizona Democratic Party.
Sinema took part in multiple media appearances to explain her decision, stressing her bipartisan efforts and focus on being an “independent voice” as Arizona’s senior senator despite being the Democratic nominee in 2018 against then-Sen. Martha McSally.
“Removing myself from the partisan structure — not only is it true to who I am and how I operate, I also think it’ll provide a place of belonging for many folks across the state and the country, who also are tired of the partisanship,” Sinema said.
In a natural extension of my service since I was first elected to Congress, I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington and formally registering as an Arizona Independent. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/jUQHAeuxym
In another statement Friday, Sinema noted her independent minded approach “is rare in Washington and has upset partisans in both parties,” but she believes it is “an approach that has delivered lasting results for Arizona.”
Sinema’s sentiment that she has well-served her constituents is not universally shared by Democrats back home, where her lack of enthusiastic support for many Democratic candidates in the 2022 election cycle, including Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ run for governor, caused frustration for the Arizona Democratic Party.
Friday’s defection announcement was met by a good riddance style statement from state party leaders, who said everything except don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
“Senator Sinema may now be registered as an Independent, but she has shown she answers to corporations and billionaires, not Arizonans,” the statement read. “Senator Sinema’s party registration means nothing if she continues to not listen to her constituents.”
Some of Sinema’s votes in past years vexed key party leaders, but the discontent remained mostly under the surface until January. That is when the Arizona Democratic Party’s executive board censured Sinema for opposing changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules so that Democrats could push through voting rights legislation in advance of the 2022 election cycle.
Over the last two election cycles, the number of Arizona voters now registered as independents or no-party designated is almost equal to the number of registered Republicans, while independents outnumber registered Democrats by about 110,000 voters.
If Sinema seeks reelection in 2024, a run as an independent allows her to avoid a rough primary such as one U.S. Representative Ruben Gallego has been suggesting for months that he plans to put forth. Gallego issued a statement Friday that promoted his donation webpage while criticizing Sinema.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton decried suggestions that Sinema’s decision was somehow connected to a “post-partisan epiphany.” Instead, the former Phoenix mayor said it was “about political preservation” in light of Sinema’s recent polling numbers.
However, Sinema’s move was applauded by many Conservatives, including Larry Elder, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Twitter CEO Elon Musk.
.@SenatorSinema has left the Democrat party. The only reason more democrats don’t leave is that social media has convinced them that the doors are locked.#TwitterFiles2
Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s switch to independent because she will”not be stuck into one party’s demands of following without thinking” is a reminder that the Democrats increasingly have two wings-weird and insane. Republicans should learn to be more inclusive of individualism.
Sinema’s voter registration switch ensures far-left Democrats will lose any foothold they expected to have after the recent Georgia runoff gave Democrats a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. However, she is expected to retain all of her committee assignments from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top-ranking Democrats.
Unlike fellow independents Sen. Angus King (Maine) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont) who formally caucus with Democrats, Sinema says she does not plan to caucus with any party.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
The Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP) urged Attorney General Mark Brnovich to investigate Governor-elect Katie Hobbs’ role in censorship of online speech.
The AZGOP asked Brnovich to determine whether Hobbs violated federal or state laws by using state resources in coordination with the Biden administration to remove posts on her office’s behalf. They further requested that Brnovich obtain the entire trove of communications between the secretary of state’s office and Twitter.
As the Arizona Daily Independent reported, court filings in the case Missouri v. Biden revealed that the secretary of state’s office used a middle man of sorts to censor online speech: the Center for Internet Security (CIS).
The Republican Party of Arizona calls on @GeneralBrnovich to immediately investigate @SecretaryHobbs over a government agency directing a private company to suppress free speech.
CIS is led by a former Obama administration official, and has received hundreds of millions in federal grants and contracts over the past two decades.
Several days after discovery of Hobbs’ arrangement to moderate online speech, Hobbs called on Arizonans during the statewide canvass certifying the election to suppress election misinformation and disinformation.
Secretary of State @katiehobbs directs Arizonans to monitor election-related speech and suppress conspiracies. Fascinating timing given the recent discovery that Hobbs' office effectively controlled election-related speech online. pic.twitter.com/W7nskWV63s
As of press time, Brnovich hasn’t issued a public statement on social media or by press release to address the AZGOP’s request. AZ Free News requested comment; the attorney general’s office didn’t respond by press time.
While Hobbs hasn’t addressed the controversy over her office’s moderation of online speech, her incoming chief of staff and former assistant secretary of state, Allie Bones, issued a statement to multiple mainstream media outlets defending the arrangement.
Bones told reporters that it was the job of governments, including the secretary of state’s office, to purge the public square of perceived misinformation and disinformation. Bones added that the CIS arrangement was a normal one between governments and social media companies. The chief of staff insisted that their actions weren’t silencing dissent.
“One of the ways we [make sure that voters are informed] is by working to counter disinformation online that can confuse voters,” stated Bones. “This is yet another example of conspiracy theorists trying to create chaos and confusion by casting doubt on our election system. It’s unfair to Arizona voters and it’s harmful to our democracy.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, Senate President-elect Warren Petersen (LD-14) published his plan to help counter the burgeoning inflation crisis.
Petersen declared that four approaches would relieve the pressure of rising costs to Arizonans: eliminating rental and food taxes, increasing the housing supply, and reducing or eliminating occupational license fees. The president-elect insisted that the state could spare these cost-reducing measures because it has a surplus of funds.
“[H]ardworking taxpayers are reeling during this period of runaway inflation and are having a tough time paying for the most basic necessities,” stated Petersen. “These initiatives are not too difficult to accomplish. Local and state governments have surpluses in their coffers.”
The rental tax elimination proposal would allow tenants to stop paying a tax on top of their rent. Petersen reasoned that homeowners don’t have to pay a tax every time they pay their mortgage. He also noted that the state earns plenty from taxes to landlords.
“This initiative alone can put thousands annually into the pockets of tenants,” stated Petersen.
As for the food tax elimination proposal, Petersen argued that the state shouldn’t be taxing a necessity.
“This tax is regressive and hurts the poorest of the poor,” stated Petersen. “Let’s ban it completely.”
The increased housing supply proposal would cut through bureaucratic tape. Petersen indicated that incoming legislation would clear and expedite the administrative hurdles for land development and housing approvals.
“20 years ago, you could take a property from dirt and build a house within six months. Those days are long gone as a litany of hurdles have been placed in obtaining approvals for land development and housing. Now, it can take as long as four years!” observed Petersen.
The proposal to reduce or eliminate occupational licensing fees would likely boost jobs, with Petersen indicating that reductions of those fees would be half of what they are now.
Petersen shared that Finance Chair J.D. Mesnard (LD-13), Appropriations Chair John Kavanagh (LD-03), and Government Chair Jake Hoffman (LD-15) were on board to make these initiatives a reality.
Constituents interested in tracking legislative updates, especially concerning these four sweeping inflation-reduction initiatives, may access regular communications such as Kavanagh’s weekly “Kavanagh’s Korner” video reports.
The legislative equivalent of spring training began today in the senate with a pre-session orientation meeting of all senators. I will be keeping everyone informed with spontaneous tweets and my weekly Kavanagh’s Korner constituent video reports. pic.twitter.com/gI5Na1SySV
— Representative John Kavanagh (@JohnKavanagh_AZ) December 7, 2022
Arizona has the highest inflation rate in the country — specifically the Phoenix area, charting at over 12 percent. Inflation for the Valley rose by about two points every couple of months beginning in August of last year. Inflation reached a high in August at around 13 percent.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer worked with the federal government to moderate speech, suggesting in one meeting that they hold “bootcamps” for media outlets to improve election reporting. Richer clarified to AZ Free News that he doesn’t advise or direct the actions of the federal government.
According to documents obtained by Trump’s 2024 campaign attorney Christina Bobb, Richer met with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity Advisory Committee (CSAC) Misinformation & Disinformation (MDM) Subcommittee in March. CISA is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Well look at what we found!! Turns out @CISAgov has been collaborating with Maricopa County @stephen_richer to censor election information and keeping it from the public. Notice it’s marked FOUO. Richer also started a Super PAC to take down “election deniers”……. pic.twitter.com/xdrIJWJBHU
Richer cited The Gateway Pundit (TGP) reporting on a debunked claim that county election officials held an unannounced meeting as one example of misinformation.
TGP sued Maricopa County last month, TGP Communications v. Sellers, for denying one of its reporters a press pass. On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the county to issue the press pass while litigation continues. The court asserted that the county likely violated the First Amendment, finding that the county discriminated against TGP for its reporter’s political views.
This reporter asked Maricopa County for comment on the order to issue a press pass. The county responded that it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.
AZ Free News asked Richer about this collaboration with CISA, as well as his decision to delete the below tweet amid the ongoing lawsuit. Richer responded that his remarks to CISA weren’t unique from remarks that he’s shared with many other audiences. He added that the documents posted on Twitter summarized the topics he discussed.
“I don’t advise them on anything or direct any of their actions. I think they just wanted the perspective of an election administrator and what I try to do to share accurate voting information,” stated Richer.
As for the tweet, Richer explained that he occasionally deletes posts that he dislikes or believes to be unproductive in hindsight. He added that he doesn’t keep track of the posts he deletes or the reasons why he deleted them.
Richer told the MDM Subcommittee that the federal government and CISA had low credibility in rumor control. He advised that those with the most credibility were local community members, mainstream media, and social media companies like Twitter and Facebook.
Along with the misinformation and disinformation claims, Richer told CISA that some were guilty of “malinformation” by submitting too many public records requests. In its meeting summary, CISA characterized the increase in requests as an “abuse.”
“In 2019, Maricopa County received 30-40 public records requests. In 2021, they received over 350 requests ranging from requests to produce everything related to the 2020 election to all email communications related to elections, to all the rules and processes on how the elections are administered,” stated the report. “This example highlights how individuals can use lawful means to burden a system already stretched thin.”
Those leading the MDM Subcommittee meeting were Megan Tsuyi, designated federal officer for CSAC and MDM Subcommittee; Kate Starbird, a University of Washington professor and MDM Subcommittee chair; and Kim Wyman, CISA senior election security lead.
Others present at the meeting were Vijaya Gadde, the legal, public policy, and trust and safety lead for Twitter; and Suzanne Spalding, senior DHS advisor and director of Defending Democratic Institutions Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
