LE: Former Lebanon judge pleads guilty to sex abuse charges

Whoops. OK, link fixed.

A few questions, though.  For example, what is this line doing in the story?

The charges stem from accusations he abused his power as a judge by using female parolees and employees to gratify his sexual desires.

At the very least, it’s not sourced, and that makes it a really awkward line, since it doesn’t strike me as the kind of thing that a reporter would write.  But this is way more important:

Houchin was sentenced to five years supervised probation, 30 days in jail, 80 hours of community service for each count, registration as a sex offender, sex offender evaluation and treatment, disclosure of all prior victims and must pay $633 in fines and charges.

That’s all he got for this:

Former Lebanon Municipal Court Judge Larry Kenneth Houchin pleaded guilty this afternoon to two counts of first-degree official misconduct, one count of third-degree sexual abuse and one count of sexual harassment.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t really like punitive justice; I prefer something restorative.  But within the constraints of the legal system, it seems like the guy got off really easily.  I hope the Express follows up on this.

Breaking: Newspaper declares journalists unnecessary

So I was reading the newly-redesigned Corvallis Gazette-Times website earlier today (though I agree with the Eugene Weekly – the word “Corvallis” is conspicuously absent from the new header), when I saw a link to a “news story” about riparian zone recovery.

I put news in quotes because I noticed when I opened the story that it was bylined “OSU News and Communications,” which means it is a press release.  Presumably, since they didn’t both to retype it and/or add or subtract or give it a GT byline, it’s an unedited PR. My reaction was something like “well, that’s crap.  They should not be running unedited PRs,” and to an extent, I still think that’s true.  However, I also acknowledge the shrinking number of journalists and the pressure to produce that places on the remainder, especially at the G-T.  And besides, I’d rather know that it’s a PR than not.

And on top of that, there is a good argument to be made for running PRs, especially on the web, on the grounds that it increases access to information, which is the point of a newspaper, right?

So having thought it about it a bit, I put up a bit on Twitter expressing my surprise that the GT would label an unedited PR with an OSU News and Communications byline.  You can see that, and rest of the conversation, below.

(click for larger, clearer version)

I mean, in some ways I agree (see my suggestion about a special website section – certainly I like the idea of a newspaper website hosting more information, not less), but I also think the page structure does not make that at all clear – the single byline that attributes to “OSU News and Communications” does not make it clear that it’s a PR, and it’s really small anyway.  Come on – many readers don’t know the difference between a column, op/ed, letter, and news story; you can’t tell me they are byline- and PR-savvy.  And I think folding the PRs in with the news stories, in the same format and in the same online sections, obscures the source.  AP stuff, for example, does not look the same or appear in the same section.

Also, if it’s not that important, then what’s the point of journalists?  Ostensibly, journalists serve a valuable function by ferreting out the news and adding multiple points of view and relevant context.  PRs are not designed with that in mind; they are single-sourced with a clear agenda, i.e. they are not good journalism.  As a reader, I want to trust that when I see Matt Neznanski’s or Bennett Hall’s or Nancy Raskauskas’ byline I know they’ve written a good story and aren’t shilling for the subject of the story. (Just to be clear, I think all three of the people I named are excellent reporters.  This is a structural problem, not an individual one.)

Given the financial and other constraints placed on journalism these days, and the terrible, terrible quality of journalism from most of the national media, don’t give me another reason to be skeptical of newspapers.  Make it clear that a PR is different than a story.

Also, on a local level, OSU is an 800-lb. gorilla (parallels to the DC establishment and national media relationship, perhaps?).  They generate a lot of the news that goes into the GT, and that means, despite the general goodness of the people involved (on both sides), the coverage of OSU in the GT is going to be, in the long run, favorable.  Throw in the fact that – again despite the people involved – OSU and the GT have very different institutional goals, and, well, I hope you can see why I think PRs need to be very clearly labeled as being PRs, both in general and when coming from OSU.  A PR and a news story written from the ground up by a trained journalist may look the same, but have different priorities and goals, and as such, readers should be able to tell them apart.

And the GT should not be so quick to dismiss this as not mattering.  I know I trust them a little less having received such a cavalier response.

*Yes, I realize the title of the post is a bit hyperbolic.  If you don’t know by now, I might be guilty of hyperbole on occasion.

Religion in schools: make it stop, please

From the DH today (anyone know why the LE didn’t run a  story on this?):

LEBANON — The Lebanon Ministerial Association is sponsoring a dedication service Tuesday to pray for the Lebanon Community School District and its leadership. The public is invited.

The service starts at 6 p.m. in the auditorium of Lebanon High School. Prayers will be offered for the school board, administrators, teachers, parents, students and staff.

Ministers are inviting school district employees to dinner at the high school prior to the service.

Pastor Dan DeSaulnier of the Lebanon Evangelical Church said Kim Fandino, a Spanish teacher at the high school and president of the Lebanon Education Association, suggested the ceremony and will lead part of the worship.

Um, NO.  It’s fine for high school employees who share a religious tradition to get together and do their thing, but it should absolutely not be on school grounds, nor should it be publicized as if it was a school-sanctioned function.

“Public schools have to be a place where children of all faiths and children of no faiths need to feel welcomed and embraced,” Fidanque said. “Events like this draw lines and imply that families and students who attend this event will be part of the ‘in’ crowd and tend to ostracize people of other faiths and other religious beliefs.”

Doesn’t everyone realize this is the point of such an event?  The presence of Fandino alone should be a strong indicator of this – aside from Alexander, I can’t think of another person in the LCSD who has been as divisive over the last decade.  And to be fair to Alexander, I don’t think he always knew he was being so divisive.

But wait, you say.  What about this?

“It’s like baccalaureate for grownups,” she added. “We’re coming together, we’re praying for each other and we’re looking toward the future.”

First, BLECH.  The comment about it being ‘baccalaureate for grownups’ is painfully bad proselytizing, and an insider plug aimed at recruiting churchgoing students (I doubt many non-Christian students will be familiar with the bacc service she’s referring to).  Second, as the ACLU executive director pointed out, the “each other” only really holds true for the participants and those who identify with them.  Were I  a student or staff person at LHS, I would not feel like this event included me in any way. (Along those lines, when I was subbing, I saw Christian iconography or quotes in more than one classroom.  Not cool.)

Events like this pretend to build community but really build factions, since they are exclusive.  The ACLU ED is right – while it’s technically legal, the relevant question (as any clergy should know) is not can but should? And the answer is clearly no.

Immediate Update: It appears the LE did run a blurb on this.  However, they failed to mention what I would consider very, very relevant information, like the fact that LCSD employees will be leading part of the service.  On what possible grounds would the LE justify leaving that out?  That’s news.

I think the Express made a serious mistake

About two weeks ago, the Lebanon Express ran a story on a motorcycle crash outside Lebanon in which two people were killed. The story quoted a bystander describing some of the injuries sustained by one of the deceased in descriptive but not, in my opinion, overly graphic terms.

I didn’t pay too much attention to the story until I got a message on Facebook from a friend asking me if a relative of mine still worked at the paper.  This happens periodically, and when it does, alarm bells go off in my head, because it usually means they have a bone to pick with something that appeared in the paper; less often it just means they have a wedding announcement or something similar they are going to submit.  This case turned to be the former (and I should note that most of the time the proverbial bone to pick ends up being silly).  And, when I read the story, I agreed with the person who contacted me:  the inclusion in the story of the line describing the injury to the deceased was wrong.

I came to that conclusion based on something of a balancing test:  Whether the journalistic value of the contested information outweighed the potential harm done to the family that could (and, as it turns out, would) occur to the family from seeing that information in the newspaper.

First, the journalistic value in including the information:  I don’t really see much.  This could be argued, but I just fail to see how including information about the specifics of the injuries in the way adds any significant journalistic value to the story. It’s out of the norm; for most accidents, it seems like newspaper include a vague, general description of injuries, and that’s it, or even just a general description of the level of injury sustained (critical, life-threatening, non-life threatening, etc.).  And the argument that it’s a quote does not excerpt it from any norms about having journalistic value; those norms apply to quotes in all other cases, so this shouldn’t be any different.

Second, the harm done. If you check out the story, there is a comment from the wife of the deceased that makes it crystal clear that harm was done to the family by including the contested information.  That doesn’t seem very debatable.

Third, the Society of Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) states, in part: “Journalists should… show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.” Given the harm done to the family for the negligible value added (made even more clearly negligible because it was removed from the story), I think it’s no stretch at all to claim that the decision to print the quote violates the SPJ’s Code of Ethics.

So as the result of said balancing test, I think the harm done through the inclusion of the description of the person’s injuries outweighs – significantly – any value in including the information, and thus the decision to include it becomes wrong.

The Express has, since the initial story went up, removed the language in question and left a note on the bottom of the story indicating they changed something in the story; however, they did not indicate what they changed or why.

Having established the harm done, and the SPJ violation, what do I think the Express should do now?

Apologize, of course.  And run it both on the web and in print.  They haven’t – and I doubt they will.

Why is an apology important? The obvious reason is that it is the right thing to do by the family of the deceased. However, I want to point out that there’s another reason: The Express’ self-interest.

By running the description, the Express clearly damaged its reputation among some members of the community. It’s a small paper, in a small market, in an era where newspapers are folding left and right. It can’t afford to alienate readers.  I know all the Lee papers in the valley are, at the least, seeing smaller-than-usual profit margins, even if they are still making money (and I would not be surprised to find out some of them are losing money).

Morever, an apology is a way to lift the curtain a bit and let people see that the newspaper is produced by human beings whose judgment isn’t perfect (and if that scares any newspaper staff, let me assure you the public already knows you’re not omniscient, so you can go ahead and drop the act). It’s also a chance to educate readers on the process of reporting and editing a newspaper. It lets readers identify with the newspaper, not against it. This is the emerging trend in journalism, for better or worse.

And again from the perspective of the LE, I fail to see where the harm is in apologizing – the damage has already been done; apologizing can be an effective way to defuse the anger.  Refusing to apologize – or more importantly, refusing to have a conversation with readers either defending the decision or explaining why it was made – means the anger at the newspaper is what people are left with.  I would think it would be obvious that this is a bad thing from the point of view of the newspaper, but apparently not.

As well, the web may not be where most people read the story, but it is where the comments were left, and it is the future of newspapers (possibly less so for small-town papers like the LE, but it is still a significant part of the future).  The web is also where the story was amended, since it can’t be amended in the print addition.  And finally, the web is where interaction between readers and newspaper staff occurs.  Yes, it can occur in person as well, but not the same degree, and not, in general, publicly – see my last point about letting readers have a glimpse behind the curtain & engaging them on the decision-making process.

At this point, you might be asking why I didn’t just contact the paper directly and ask for an apology.  I did, and was told in no uncertain terms that there was not going to be an apology.  I was not given a reason beyond the fact that Lee newspapers don’t really apologize for anything.  Hence this blog post.

Bottom Line:  The Express made an error when it included a quote in the story that had a graphic description of one of the deceased, but it made a mistake when it refused to apologize, run a correction, or even explain or defend its decision to the community.  Errors are correctable.  Mistakes are not.

These days, a lot of the posts that come through my RSS reader have to do with health insurance reform.  More specifically, the politics of health insurance reform, and how it’s really, really not working out.  And I can’t say I disagree.  In a way, assiduously reading a series of political blogs who follow the minutiae of the debate has given me what feels like a front-row seat to the unfolding debate/debacle.

So what is it I think I’m seeing?  Well, others have a variety of answers to that question, but I think I’m seeing something entirely predictable:  Corporate dominance of the domestic political system.

And by corporate dominance I mean not only has the insurance industry simply bought off a tremendous number of congresscritters, but has managed to convince those same congresscritters of some clearly insane things (death panels, anyone?).  And don’t get me started on the whole town halls thing – I am trying keep what little faith in other people I have alive.

But none of this is really surprising, I guess.  It’s how the system has been working for decades, as far as I can tell.  Certainly it’s been this way my entire adult life.  That doesn’t mean I’m totally immune to the level of tragedy that unfolds daily with regard to people’s health; I do have to step back from it, or it’s overwhelming.  But it does mean that I know it’s necessary not to look only at individual but structural, systemic causes.  And enough to know that this point, made by Digby, is just about enough to blow my mind:

Citigroup’s guarantees are among $23.7 trillion of total potential government support stemming from programs set up since 2007 to ease the financial crisis, according to a report last month by Barofsky’s office.

23.7 trillion? And we are having a full-on political meltdown over one trillion to cover all Americans with comprehensive health care? Really?

Yes., we are.  And I’ll leave it up to the reader to realize how monstrously immoral that is.

My Life According to The Flaming Lips; Or, This Sucky Blog is Still Alive

I did this on Facebook with NOFX, but the Flaming Lips version is, at least to me, a lot more entertaining, so I did it again.

And no, I’ve not totally abandoned the blog.  It’s summer – I have better things to do (like melt, apparently).  Anyway…..

————————————————-

Using only song names from ONE ARTIST, cleverly answer these questions. Pass it on to some people you like and include me. You can’t use the band I used. Try not to repeat a song title. It’s a lot harder than you think! Repost as “My Life According to (Band Name)”.

Pick your Artist — The Flaming Lips

Are you a male or female?: This Here Giraffe

Describe yourself: You Have To Be Joking

How do you feel right now?: Pilot Can At The Queer Of God

Describe where you currently live: Hells` Angels Cracker Factory

If you could go anywhere, where would you go: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell

Your favorite form of transportation: Approaching Pavonis Mons By Balloon (Utopia Planitia)

Your best friend is: Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World

You and your best friends are: Free Radicals

What’s the weather like: Death Valley `69

Favorite time of day: The Last Drop Of Morning Dew

If your life was a TV show, what would it be called: Lightning Strikes The Postman

What is life to you: On Fire

Your last relationship: Psychic Wall

Your fear: Evil Will Prevail

What is the best advice you have to give: Love Yer Brain

Thought for the Day: Everything`s Explodin`

How you would like to die: Out For A Walk

My soul’s present condition: Unconsciously Screamin`

My motto: The Train Runs Over The Camel But Is Derailed By The Gnat

Hess Meeting

As I mentioned earlier on this blog, I was one of the people who scheduled a meeting with the new Superintendent of the LCSD, Rob Hess.  That meeting happened earlier today – I was nearly, but not quite, the 100th person to meet with him.  Given that he’s been on the job for about 20 days, I’m impressed.

Our meeting touched on a lot of stuff, including the role of blogs in the recent history of the LCSD, but the main thing I wanted to note here is that while he didn’t dislike the idea of being interviewed – far from it, actually – we didn’t manage to completely work out the logistics.  I’ll be continuing to work on it, though – and if it happens, you can expect to see it after the school year starts.  I might come back to some of the other topics of our meeting if circumstances warrant.  In the meantime, I’d encourage everyone to keep coming up with questions.

One final note:  He’s more than willing to meet with more than 100 people.  If you have anything to say, or just want to talk to him, schedule a meeting.  The district’s phone number is 451-8511.

California reaches a tentative budget deal

I don’t have a lot to add to this, but I do have a few things:

After resolving their major education dispute Friday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders hope to finalize a budget deal today that closes California’s $26 billion deficit with spending cuts, accounting shifts and revenues from local governments.

State leaders have agreed on a general budget framework and gave attorneys and budget aides time Saturday to draft a bill, sources close to negotiations said.

The first thing is essentially this, so I’ll link and quote:

This is the way California ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper. With a failure of leadership so complete, so total, as to leave the state bereft of hope for its future.

What Calitics is getting at, I think, is the dismantling of the so-called welfare state in California.  The state is cutting its support for human beings so harshly that people are going to die as a result.

Not only that, but since California’s something like the seventh-largest economy in the world, this is far more significant than just about any other state doing this.

Pair that with the idea that as goes California, so goes the nation, and it would seem like we’re in for rough times.  However, there is a decent counterargument to be made:  Congress, unlike California’s State Assembly, doesn’t require a 2/3 majority to pass tax increases, it doesn’t have the same set of spending limitations, and, well, Barack Obama is not Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That last bit is pretty important, I think, and while I don’t want to discount the role that California’s messed-up state government has played in all this, I think the difference between Obama and Schwarzenegger is a relatively strong counter.

But I can’t shake the feeling that this event is also structural – the result, ultimately, of globalization, increasing resource competition and modern American politics colliding.  And that means if the makeup of the White House and Congress change, we could easily see the same thing on the national scale (Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, anyone?).

As much as it would be interesting from a political science perspective – people have been asking what comes after the so-called welfare state for some time now – it would be a disaster from the perspective of human health and human suffering if this is what came after.

If only Ezra Klein got a dose of radical politics….

He makes a good point here:

Is it worth being disappointed about that? Sure. But legislation cannot be understood in a vacuum. The place to change the tax argument isn’t in final days of health-care reform. It’s in the intervening years when Republicans are attacking the very idea of taxation. Any given piece of legislation is only as good as the political culture that’s produced it. Right now, our political culture isn’t that good. The question is whether legislators are getting the best plausible outcomes out of a badly compromised process.

If one of your fundamental beliefs is that collective action is a bad idea, and another is that greed is good, then it’s going to follow that a) taxation in general is bad, and b) the government can’t possibly do anything right, and you’re going to support or oppose various political and policy proposals accordingly.  Therefore, changing the underlying beliefs is far, far more important than passing any individual piece of legislation.  You want to change the playing field so the legislation doesn’t face principled opposition in the first place (if you can call greed a principle).  I am glad Klein is getting the connection between what he calls political culture and specific political moments; it’s a realization that all sorts of people on the moderate left could use.  It’s not that hard to get when you don’t share the underlying political beliefs in the first place to draw the connection between those beliefs and specific policy or legislative or political proposals.

I’d like to interview Superintendent Rob Hess

As part of Superintendent Hess’ transition into the Lebanon Community School District, he’s offered up something like 100 meetings for community members and others on a first-come, first-scheduled basis.  Each meeting, as I understand it, is 30 minutes in length, and it’s his way of getting to know the community.  It’s a good idea.  I signed up for one, for early next week.  If you know me you can probably guess what I want to talk about:  Blogs!  And the internets!  And stuff!

But I want to do something else, too, if Hess is willing:  I’d like to offer him an interview, with the un- or minimally-edited results to be posted on this blog.  And not a short, on-the-spot interview, either; a longer, in-depth interview, one that’s pre-arranged, and that I can record and transcribe.  Not only that, but if he’s amenable, I’d like to solicit questions and topics for the interview from the five people who still read this blog – to crowdsource the questions, if you will.  I have some ideas of what I would ask, but I bet there are plenty of topics and issues that you’d like to see addressed by Hess.

So, internets, what do you say?  Should I ask the Super for an interview?  And if so, what should I ask him?  Leave your answers in the comments.

Reporting on Lebanon’s Pregnancy Alternatives Center

There’s a story in the LE this week about the rebuilt Pregnancy Alternative Center reopening:

The Lebanon Pregnancy Alternatives Center has been rebuilt from the ground up after a fire last December destroyed the building.

I blogged a bit about this when it was first burned down:

Something like the Lebanon Pregnancy Alternatives Center doesn’t seem to provide birth control or even mention abortion, much less abortion referrals, as an option on their website (which I will not link to).

What I noticed this time about the story in the LE was this:

The center is described on the group’s website as a “nonprofit, volunteer-based, Christian organization dedicated to helping women through unplanned pregnancies.”

Tracy described the center as a “medical clinic to serve women who want to find out if they are pregnant.”

Actually, it’s more accurate to say that I noticed what was not in the story:  An accurate description of the services the center provides – or fails to provide.  I think this is a problem.  Why?

Put yourself in the shoes of a teenager or legal adult who finds herself in need of reproductive health services, be they access to birth control, an abortion, or counseling on an unplanned pregnancy.  She happens to see the Express story and remembers the PAC – but doesn’t know what kind of services they provide.  She goes there, and finds out that they can’t (or won’t) do what she asks, which turns out to be refer her to an abortion provider – something that is not mentioned on their website as a service, and in fact is only mentioned in a negative context at all.  So the person visiting the PAC is not given a full range of reproductive health options, and is in fact almost certainly steered in one or two specific directions.  That’s not cool, and neither is the Express omitting that information from their story.  They owe it to their readers to provide a more complete picture of what the PAC does, and what kind of agenda it has.

Whales

Whoa:

I asked Frohoff at one point if, given both the dark past of human-whale interactions in those lagoons and what we’ve now come to know about whale intelligence, there could possibly be some element of knowing forgiveness behind their actions. She took a deep breath and widened her eyes, making it clear that she wanted to be very careful about how she answered such a question.

“Those are the kinds of things that for the longest time a scientist wouldn’t dare consider,” she said. “But thank goodness we’ve gone through a kind of cognitive revolution when it comes to studying the intelligence and emotion of other species. In fact, I’d say now that it is my obligation as a scientist not to discount that possibility. We do have compelling evidence of the experience of grief in cetaceans; and of joy, anger, frustration and distress and self-awareness and tool use; and of protecting not just their young but also their companions from humans and other predators.

It’s a long, long article, but worth the read.  And if nothing else, check out the final few paragraphs.

Tipping

From the author of Waiter Rant, who is writing a book about tipping (and no, this isn’t even a book excerpt AFAIK, just a paragraph from a regular ol’ post):

Tipping, as I’m discovering, is a very strange phenomenon. Existing in a netherworld off human emotions, social utility, and economic theory, it defies easy classification. Tipping is both rational and irrational, self serving and altruistic, a form of freedom and control, and beneficial and harmful in it’s social impact. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Tipping is a human activity. And. like all human activity, it generates a certain amount of ambivalence. Maybe that’s why people get so hot and bothered when discussing tipping. Deep down there’s no one answer to why people tip. And that lack of clarity is unnerving. Man, I have my work cut out for me.

He can write, that’s for sure.

Link Dump

Why don’t I update this crappy blog, blah blah blah…. basically, it’s summer, and I’d rather be outside than spend any more time at a computer.  Strange, I know, but somehow true.  Anyway, below is a collection of links I always intended to post on within a day or two of finding them, but never did.  Thus the link dump.

Dean Dad analyzes the Ricci case quite well, and the Supreme Court comes out looking like a bunch of assholes.  Which seems fitting, since a good portion of them have shown themselves to be, well, a bunch of assholes.

It turns out there is something called the Corvallis Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and that it does, well, metro planning for the Corvallis area.  And they have a website.

Some early polling on the 2010 Oregon Governor’s race.  Of note:  Gordon Smith manages to be the only person with higher negatives than positives.  However, he still smokes Steve Novick, which I suspect is partially due to Novick’s low name recognition.

From the NYT, some neat info about drinks ingredients.  I’m filing this one away for later use.  (As a side note, the thing about cane sugar would explain why the Cuba Libre I had in Germany in 2001 was by far the best one I’ve ever had.)

Republican Presidential candidates are not faring so well:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal saw his stock drop after a disastrous television appearance; Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been embroiled in feuds with her state legislators and with late-night talk-show host David Letterman [and has since resigned]; Nevada Sen. John Ensign admitted he had an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was forced to back step after he used the word “racist” to describe Sonia Sotomayor, a nominee for the Supreme Court.

About the only reason the Republican Party is still #2 is that there is no #3.  In a true multiparty system, they’d be coming completely apart by now.

What does international relations theory say about parenting?

Dead Dad (again!) advocates that all employers in America, public and private, be forced to make their salary data publicly available.  As he notes, this will put a lie to the idea that he public sector is overpaid – or, more accurately, it will show just how little the public sector does pay.

A comprehensive Housing and Transportation Affordability Index.  Neat.

Courtney trial moved from Benton County

The GT’s Rachel Beck has a story today noting that the Courtney trial is being moved out of Benton County:

In a surprise move at a hearing Tuesday afternoon in Benton County Circuit Court, prosecutors said they would concede to the defense’s motion to change the trial’s venue.

As the story makes clear, the prosecution’s decision to not oppose the motion was tactical.  But this bit interested me:

The motion itself gave no reasons for the change of venue, but the defense often seeks a change of venue in high-profile cases where there has been extensive pretrial publicity, arguing it makes finding an impartial jury difficult.

Given that this is being reported in the newspaper, one has to see the irony, no?

But more important than the irony (yes, there is such a thing) is the question of balancing the fact that the Courtney stuff is unquestionably news with the fact that yes, publicizing the case has consequences.

So, my question:  How should journalists balance those two conflicting issues?  Should they even worry about it at all?