#the psych office layout research | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

drmyler · 4 years ago

Text

Consequences

Consequences – Sexual Harassment & Its Aftermath

Professor Stephen F. Myler PhD (Psych)

Abstract:

This paper was a result of a request from a Fortune 100 company for a presentation to employees who were on final warnings for sexual harassment (but were too valuable for the company to let go). The first approach was an educational one but on subsequent discussions with human resources turned into a mental health insight into who harasses and what happens to their victims as a way of behaviour change and hopefully subsequent better conduct in their positions of authority, power or character. Here I layout the principal presentation outline and after thoughts.

Introduction:

Sexual Harassment is a continuing topic of discussion highlighting the dangers of predators in the workplace looking for victims to exploit. Harassment can come in the form of sexual, verbal, powerlessness and other situational circumstances against both gender employees. This can have a adverse effect on the persons employments status, performance and create a hostile, intimidating work environment.

In many countries the law on harassment is not consistent or clear to many victims Police attitudes to sexuality colour their attitude to complainants. Fear of losing face, embarrassment and the consequences of a complaint make the majority of females refuse to report and continue to suffer. Although in several polls from 1991 to 1998 the level of harassment reported fell this changed after 2016 when the MeToo#.com campaign to openly name and shame members of the film industry initially and then to further areas of employment, dramatically increased complaints, but also many outside the statute of limitations. However this also increased false claims and band-wagoning for those looking for the limelight and publicity (often from failed actresses with a grudge for example). The figures from polls are generally unreliable as either over reporting, sensationalizing or invalidity in the lack of randomization of a given population.

So who gets harassed? Targets are often female with a male perpetrator, the target has less power, the behaviour is repeated, repeated requests from the target to stop and organization policy soft on predators. Others targets maybe of colour, alternative sexuality, disability and socioeconomically dependent.

Moral Dilemma & Perception：

When is a compliment harassment? If a large proportion of married couples and long term partners meet at work how can we prevent normal human attraction? The way in which we accept attention often depends on their personal history. Being a past victim of abuse, unhappy relationships may view flirtation as threatening where as another with happier development might welcome the attention and enjoy the moment. In many cultures and radical religions, women are still seen as the property of men – second class citizens and to serve men's needs. They have no rights. Cultures often including those with a tradition of FACE, never report harassment so as not to embarrass their family, or to lose face with friends – men in such societies have more power over women employees who they know will not report them.

Therefore HR departments need to look more openly at prevention and protection. Companies need clear harassment statements based on the realities of their people. If you are a victim there should be a clear reporting system that maintains confidentiality. Both accuser and accused have equal rights (beware of manipulation.) HR should follow the victim's wishes not the companies policy. HR should not protect the company or senior executives as their first priority. In fact HR personnel should face criminal charges for putting the companies interests first.

The Presentation:

Agenda:

To explore what type of person that sexually and mentally effects another in a corporate environment.

To Explain victimization – why do some employees become victims – why do they submit to harassment and few even making a complaint? What treatment options and remedies are there for both predators and victims of harassment?

The Persecutor – Type One

Usually in a position of authority over the victim. Thinks consequences unlikely. Uses coercion – threats implied or real. Offers gifts, support, promises and protection. Creates a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness in the victim.

Personality – assertive, aggressive, controlling, critical. Figure of authority – must be obeyed. Feels they deserve respect and pleasing. Lack of empathy – no pity for the victim. Once satisfied loses interest in the victim and moves to the next target.

The Persecutor – Type Two

The Groomer, looks for vulnerable persons, compliments that go from casual to more personal. Lunch, dinner invites – to listen – to help. Creates trust, obligation and dependency. Victim feels no way out – care for the persecutor – owes them something.

Personality – Friendly, caring, supportive, listener, no fear of consequences. Creates trust, obligation, warmth, reciprocation. Genuinely cares for the victim, looking for constant sexual favours, no commitment outside of work. No empathy for the victims position.

Victim of Type One

Subordinate, insecure, fear of reprisals. Coerced into secrecy – feels obligation. Flattered by interest from an authority figure. Special place in the office, factory, group, team. Social comparison – I am not good enough – others are better than me.

Victim Damage Type One

Aftermath – loss of face – feels victimized. PTSD – flashbacks, panic attacks. Attitude change – Don't be close – Don't be you. Long term mental health issues with both relationships and sex. 80% leave the job within two years.

Victim of Type Two

Vulnerable – timid – needy – attention seeking. Shares problems, seeks a listener, wants attention, likes compliments and flattery. Responds to flirtations as humour. Trapped by obligation – feels they owe something, need to pay a price.

Victim Damage Type Two

Loss of trust. Ambiguity about their part in the abuse. Feelings of blame and guilt. Attitude change – I deserved it. Don't be close. Most likely to become a victim again. Long term mental health issues over self esteem. Leaves job as quickly as possible. Financial loss and benefits for support.

Persecutor Treatment / Action Plan:

Counselling - Type One

Resistant to change – takes longer to accept responsibility. Cognitive behavioral therapy for confronting past behaviour. Educational approach with Transactional Analysis – drama triangle etc. Acceptance of future loss of position and income.

Counselling – Type Two

To face up to egotistical need to manipulate others. To examine their sexuality and drive to express their need for conformation of being accepted in a real relationship. To move from a Child state to an Adult state of action in everyday functioning.

Victim Treatment / Action Plan:

Counselling – Type One

Relive the trauma through supported listening and insightful interaction. Recognize they are a victim of an event but not to be a victim for life. To not transfers positive emotions to negative feelings. To relearn trust – to be open, honest and authentic in the future.

Counselling – Type Two

To accept they were an innocent victim. That they were groomed and raise their self esteem. To tackle their own vulnerability that made them a target in the first place. To not reject future genuine relationships.

A Word on Legality:

Consequences:

Type One – Public disgrace – time in prison – loss of family – loss of prestige and income. Blames the victim for their dilemma.

Type Two – Publicly exposed - loss of face- time in prison- blames themselves- more likely to re-offend

A Word on Witness's

Attitudes:

Men think: sympathy for persecutors as victims too. Perceives victims as playing the victim.

Women think: they asked to be a victim – no sympathy – empathy only from other victims. Played the game and got burned.

End of Presentation

Summery:

This presentation was designed for one hour to a small groups of offenders. The idea being that they face up to their responsibility in the action of abuse and that they accept they need treatment – also the understanding that their harassment has long term mental health damage to their victims. This then as a first step to a full treatment plan under the guidance of a clinical psychologist. Individual therapy and group acknowledgment both have a role to play in treatment options. Counselling for victims is more common as they themselves seek out help for their emotional turmoil. Persecutors of harassment are more likely to avoid treatment as they are convinced in many cases they minimize the damage the victims suffered.

References:

Myler S. F. (2006 – 2019) Clinical case files. Types of Persecutor / Victim in Harassment (original work).

CNN/ Time Poll (1991 – 1998)

DOD Survey (1988 – 1995)

Martin G (2018) Linked-in publication - Cupid's Arrow Will Hit At Work - So Deal with It!

Note：references are not linked in the text as this would take away the focus on content. Much of the background research was done in confidential circumstances so are not acknowledged in the text. Thank you for your understanding.

0 notes

sexierthanaheartburn-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Scream (series) - Theories behind the 2015 Lakewood murders

Season 1 - 2015 murders:

-Background-

In October 1994, the 1994 Lakewood murders were 5 brutal killings high schoolers - with the only direct survivor being Kevin Duval. These murders were thought to be committed by Brandon James who was shot by police officers and thought to be dead. Later, he resurfaces outside the lake - injured but still alive. Eventually, he was found by Daisy (his secret lover whom he was obsessed with) and her friend Miguel. They buried his knife and allowed Brandon James to escape and disappear in peace for the next 20 years. His last words were “don’t forget me” in a note in which he left for Daisy. Daisy later changed her name to Maggie Duval to protect her identity as she was very vulnerable due to her connections with the 1994 Lakewood murders and her being a minor.

During this, Maggie and Brandon James hooked and Maggie ended up pregnant. Her family forced to give up her child for adoption and later resulted in Piper Shaw.

Maggie ended up marrying Kevin Duval in which she had a daughter named Emma Duval. Shortly after, Kevin became an alcoholic and lashed out pretty badly (and fearing for his daughter's safety after fracturing his wife’s jaw)- he then abandoned his daughter and wife.

Clark Hudson and his wife had split up (divorced possibly) due to his pill addiction and thus Hudson left in order to get help. Kieran felt neglected and unloved and so he had an obsession with a girl in Atlanta and framed his cousin Eli for it (which he got a restraining order.) Kieran’s mum and his stepfather died in a car crash that he indirectly/directly caused.

He and Piper met and dated and wanted to take revenge on their parents for leaving them and for Piper - to ruin Emma Duval’s “perfect life”. The life she craved for and was starved of it.

Kieran first killed Nina Patterson to start of the murder spree as she was looked upon the central character. She was back sliced and throat slit with a hunting knife before bleeding out after being thrown into her swimming pool. Killed by Kieran. As she and Kieran had left the bar together the previous night, Kieran knew exactly the layout of Nina’s house. She was Lakewood’s mean girl who seemingly had no weakness and was a manipulative bitch - she was immortal in that sense. Kieran and Pipers killing, from that perspective, can be looked upon as some sort of perverted justified killing.

Then, Tyler O’Neill. He was decapitated with a hunting knife. He also dated Nina. He was blackmailing Mayor Maddox as Mayor Maddox was moving a body into his garage and Tyler had gotten that footage. Killed by Kieran.

Throughout all of this, Audrey and Nina were best friends until she betrayed her and left for the “popular gang” and was lonely. Additionally, it was more than a friendship to Audrey as she loved Nina and claimed she broke her heart. She then asked Piper to come to Rosewood (also bring Kieran) to help her film her documentary. She accused Piper if she had any involvement in Nina and Tyler’s dead to which she replied no (however she was the one who was filming this) and naive Audrey believed her.

After this, the person to get murdered was Rachel Murray. She had filmed Nina and Kieran leaving together and could potentially harm Kieran's reputation and even to the extent of unmasking him as a killer. She had been noose wrapped around neck; thrown over the balcony; hanged. It’s also important to note her death was purposefully made to look like a suicide to throw of suspension. Killed by Kieran (as Audrey admitted she was with Piper the night that Rachel was murdered).

Her death was pivotal as it brought Emma and Audrey closer together to find out who the Lakewood Slasher was. Additionally, Nina and Emma had filmed Audrey and Rachel kissing in a car and was "leaked" by Nina. Though Emma did not directly film the whole stunt - she felt equally as guilty and knew this was one of the things that lead to Rachel's depression and self-harm. Due to this, it was convincing it would look upon as a suicide and nothing more. Emma, as a result, felt guilty and responsible for this until she later found out the truth behind her death.

The killer strikes back again - but this time, it’s Emma’s pick. The killer texts Emma she can either chose who dies - Riley Marra or Brooke. During the time, Brooke mysteriously “disappeared” from the police station and Emma thought she would be in danger. Her other friend, Riley, is safe at the police station so this way, the killer could not touch Riley out of the fear of getting caught. Therefore, she chose Riley. Riley then shortly died after being stabbed twice in the lower back and her leg slashed open; blood loss. Piper killed Riley whereas Kieran purposely crashed Tyler’s car beforehand so that police would investigate the scene - making it a two-way job. Her death represents a symbol of everything good, pure and innocent being destroyed in Lakewood. What became “random killings” were calculated ones in which Emma had no control over her friend's beings killed. Riley was meant to get killed.

The next person to die was Will Belmont. He was kidnapped; tied and gagged to a chair at a farm; head and skull split open by farm saw. Emma accidentally set the trigger off for Will to be sliced into half however it was the Killer’s intention to make Emma indirectly kill him, amounting more death on her hands. Will was Emma’s first love and that was the icing on the cake for Emma to have a breakdown and thus getting referred to a psych ward. Killed by Kieran.

and later on in Season 2, we see this...

Can you see the parallels between this Will’s death scene and Kieran’s tape suffocation? Only that Kieran did kill Will and Kieran set this up on purpose - making him not a suspect since he “looks” like a victim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other deaths during the next few episodes were Deputy Clifton Roberts. He was attacked by the Killer; handcuffed to jail cell; stabbed in the stomach repeatedly. Killed by Piper as she released Seth from jail and Clifton Roberts just got in the way. from her achieving her aims.

In the final episode, we see Clark Hudson being tied to a tree; beaten to death; later accidentally gutted. Trigger indirectly pulled by Maggie.Killed by Kieran. Kieran has the most motive to kill his dad as payback from leaving him in Atlanta.

During Season 1 Finale, Grayson Pfeiffer was murdered (by Piper) at the house party. The final murder of the series was Piper Shaw. She was shot in the chest by Audrey using Kieran's gun; shot in the temple by Emma with Kieran's gun; fell back into Wren Lake - mirroring her father’s death. She was revealed as the First Killer with Kieran being her accomplice. In Season 2, he took her place of being the Second Killer (avenging his girlfriend, Piper.)

Other notes:

The reason why Audrey’s DNA was in the Brandon James was that she gave it to Piper for her documentary research or Kieran framed her by using some of her DNA while she was sleeping. He has a habit of going into Audrey’s bedroom quite a lot in Season 2.

NB: part 2 of this theory about the 2016 murders (season 2) is going to come out next week and the third killer theory.

-sexierthanaheartburn

#mtv scream #scream #scream theories #scream the tv series #scream the tv show #horror

29 notes · View notes

morganbelarus · 7 years ago

Text

Dont Stop the Presses! When Local News Struggles, Democracy Withers

Thomas Peele’s friend keeps bugging him. “Are you going to win?” the friend writes over Facebook. “I think you’re going to win.” “What are you going to do when you win?” “Shut up,” Peele thinks. He’s an old-school watchdog reporter. Blue eyes that bore into you. Fewer words, better.

It’s a Monday in April, and Peele and his colleagues at the East Bay Times, a newspaper in Oakland, California, are waiting to find out whether they’ve won the biggest award in journalism. For five months the paper has been reporting on the fallout of a fire that killed 36 people when it ripped through an Oakland warehouse known as the Ghost Ship. Illegally converted into artist residences, the building had a tangled layout that made it hard to escape. The Times’ coverage has painted the tragedy—Oakland’s deadliest fire—as symptomatic of the city’s lax fire-code enforcement and its affordable-housing crisis.

Peele wonders if he should have bought a case of champagne; he saw a sale at the grocery store over the weekend. No, best he didn’t. You don’t want to jinx these things. They probably won’t win anyway. He tells himself the newsroom would have gotten a heads-up, right? While he sits in his cubicle, psyching himself down for defeat, two colleagues, David DeBolt and Matthias Gafni, busy themselves with a story about another fire, one that killed four people.

Finally, a few minutes before noon, the staff gathers around Gafni’s laptop for the announcement: “For coverage of the fatal Ghost Ship fire in Oakland, California, the Pulitzer Prize for breaking news reporting goes to the staff of the East Bay Times.” Exultation. Now champagne is needed, stat. And cigars. As the reporters saunter down Broadway with stogies, Peele runs into a friend who starts shouting at random people on the street: “These guys just won the Pulitzer Prize!” he tells construction workers. “These guys just won the Pulitzer Prize!”

A week later, Bay Area News Group, the paper’s corporate owner, announces it will be firing many of its copy editors and designers. This comes as a surprise to approximately nobody.

Bay Area News Group reporter Matthias Gafni works on a story about the one-year anniversary of the Ghost Ship fire from the newsroom in Oakland, California.

Erin Brethauer for WIRED

Since the beginning of this century, as much as 80 percent of the money that used to go to newspaper advertising has ended up not far from the East Bay Times’ offices—in the pockets of tech giants reposing in Mountain View and Menlo Park. Has this upended media? Yes. For the worse? That’s the better question.

It was for only a relatively brief period, roughly between the 1890s and 1950s, that newspapers controlled advertising in this country. Because newspapers owned the printing presses, local businesses had no choice but to take out ads in their pages. There was nothing exactly natural about this arrangement, and there was nothing exactly natural about what happened next: the emergence of TV and then, more consequentially, the internet. By temperament slow to adapt, journalists did little to attract fast-moving advertisers away from the new data-harvesting potential of Google’s AdSense and DoubleClick and, later, Facebook.

Even when papers finally went online and started making gains in digital advertising—thanks in part to reader-alienating innovations like clickbait—it wasn’t enough to make up for the losses in print ads. Between 2004 and 2016, Google’s revenue—most of which comes from advertising—grew from $3.2 billion to $89.5 billion. In that same period, the amount local businesses spent on print newspaper ads fell from $44.4 billion to $12.9 billion. According to Borrell Associates, a Virginia-based research firm that tracks local ad spending, within five years very few local papers will have the resources to publish daily. Today nearly all new digital ad revenue goes to Google and Facebook, leaving only crumbs for the rest of the publishing industry.

But something happened in November 2016 that has the potential to disrupt this trend yet again. After Donald Trump’s election as president, liberal pols, conservative blowhards, and media magoos turned their ire on Silicon Valley, excoriating the likes of Google, Facebook, and Twitter for their role in disseminating preelection (dis)information. In October a Senate panel grilled executives from all three companies about political ads bought by a pro-Russia agency—some of which reached more than 126 million Facebook users.

Bay Area News Group reporter David DeBolt, who was part of the Pulitzer Prize–winning team that reported on Oakland's deadly Ghost Ship fire.

Erin Brethauer for WIRED

A week after the East Bay Times won a Pulitzer Prize, the paper's corporate owners announced a round of layoffs.

Erin Brethauer

Of course, tech is never without “fixes.” Google announced it had tweaked its search algorithm to suppress bogus stories. Craigslist’s Craig Newmark debuted WikiTribune, billed as a “platform for evidence-based journalism.” Facebook launched the Facebook Journalism Project to work more closely with publishers. In a 5,500-word manifesto, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote, “There is more we must do to support the news industry,” including “growing local news.” It seemed as if it had dawned on Dr. Frankenstein what, exactly, he had wrought. Seemed.

Perhaps these initiatives will benefit big-name institutions like The New York Times or The Washington Post (which Amazon CEO and richest man in the world Jeff Bezos bought in 2013), outlets with the clout and resources to play ball with Big Tech while surviving on flashy partnerships and paywalls that require subscribers to kick them some money for digital access. It’s less clear how Zuckerbergian interventions will “grow” local reporting like that of the East Bay Times—especially when seemingly future-proofed digital brands like DNAinfo and Gothamist (and satellites SFist, LAist, and so on) can’t survive. Earlier this year, after reporters at those outlets voted to unionize, their parent company’s owner shut them all down, citing the “tremendous effort and expense” needed to keep them running.

Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt once told The New York Times’ Miguel Helft that he thought Google had a “moral imperative” to reimburse publishers beset by falling revenue. That was in 2009. No such reimbursements have been made. (In 2014 Google did launch an ad exchange with a consortium of local newspapers.) Only now are journalists more forcefully trying to hold Google and Facebook to account. In a recent interview with Time, Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, said: “I think it’s high time that Facebook and Google created a vast philanthropy fund to fund journalism. They have stolen so much.”

In July the News Media Alliance, which represents almost 2,000 news outlets, asked Congress to allow it to negotiate with Google and Facebook. (Doing so without congressional approval would violate antitrust regulations.) David Chavern, president and CEO of the group, hopes tech and the media can come to agreements over “revenue sharing, data sharing, subscription support, and brand support.”

So far this year Alphabet has spent $13.6 million on lobbying, not a dime of which seems to be going to support Chavern’s cause. “I would be surprised if lobbyists for Google and Facebook would be supportive” of the alliance’s petition, he says. “I haven’t asked them.” Inquiries to two dozen lobbying groups that worked for Google in the quarter after the petition, and seven groups for Facebook, yielded little. “This has not come across my radar at all,” said one Google lobbyist who had heard of the petition, “and they’re not shy about things we need to work on.”

So one day in June I fly down to Phoenix to discover the future of local news. At the self-contained fiefdom that is the JW Marriott Desert Ridge, the Institute for Nonprofit News is holding its annual conference. This is some serious next-level journalistic nerdery. Editors and publishers from nonprofit news startups across the country are gathered to talk shop. Many in the industry think the future of local news is nonprofit. The conference feels like the dawn of … something. It’s surprisingly upbeat. As one attendee puts it, “It’s like being in television in 1947”—except without the promise of oodles of moola. While it’s true that the future of the East Bay Times and other local papers looks grim, maybe something here can save them.

That something might be found in the Grand Sonoran I room, where Josh Mabry and Dorrine Mendoza, representatives of the Facebook Journalism Project, give a presentation to journalists involved in nonprofit ventures. It mostly amounts to an Instant Articles sales pitch—using Facebook as a publisher for your content. During the Q&A, I ask the Facebook reps a version of the Miguel Helft question: Given that Facebook is one of two companies reaping nearly all new digital ad revenue, are there any considerations within the company to give some of that revenue back to content creators? A few people start clapping. Mabry seems slightly taken aback. He begins to talk about how great it is that his company allows publishers to collect ad money from videos on Facebook. He also mentions the revenue possible through branded content and sponsored content—essentially ads designed to look like they could be articles—on Facebook. The Q&A moves on.

Afterward I buttonhole Mabry to press him on how, exactly, local news providers—modest outfits like the East Bay Times—can take advantage of the opportunities Facebook provides. I suggest that videos and sponsored content provide substantial revenue only if a publisher is a New York Times, which has a team of professional videographers as well as T Brands, a studio staffed by people whose sole job is to create sponsored content. I posit that this formula won’t work for a vast majority of papers across the country. You don’t want your local health care reporter writing Merck ad copy. Nor is it very useful to have your city hall reporter taking shitty video of the Pumpkin Festival that nobody will watch by virtue of its very shittiness. He concedes that I do have a point. Then he starts talking about automated videos Facebook produces that wish you a happy birthday.

Cecily Burt, a Bay Area News Group editor in the East Bay Times office in Oakland.

Erin Brethauer for WIRED

Bay Area News Group is currently working to roll out a metered system in the coming weeks that will limit the number of articles nonsubscribers can see online.

Erin Brethauer for WIRED

San Jose. Warm, springy day in August. Trees, leafy. Laptops in Starbucks a-taptaptapping away. Around the corner from Bay Area News Group HQ, Hank Coca’s Downtown Furniture store is having a sale. Everything up to 80 percent off! In April, Hank died. Now the shop he founded in 1957 is closing. Somehow the fate of Hank C’s Downtown Furniture seems not entirely unrelated to the state of the East Bay Times. Symptoms of the same malady.

Neil Chase, executive editor of Bay Area News Group (which we can call BANG!), sits in his office in a purple-gray button-down, sleeves rolled up. Front pages of the San Jose Mercury News—JFK assassination, 9/11, Obama election—grace the wall. In April 2016, BANG merged the San Jose and San Mateo County papers into one—now it’s just called the Mercury News. At the same time, the company announced that four other papers—the Oakland Tribune; the Contra Costa Times, in Walnut Creek; the Daily Review, in Hayward; and The Argus, in Fremont—would become the East Bay Times. That left one paper for all of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, which combined are home to more than 2.7 million people, about the size of Chicago.

With declines in both print advertising and circulation, Chase says he’s focused on increasing revenue through digital subscriptions. Like every other paper across the nation, the income from digital ads doesn’t offset the fall in print ads and subscriptions. BANG is currently working to roll out a metered system in the coming weeks that will limit the number of articles nonsubscribers can see online—something many (mostly larger) papers across the country have already done, with varying degrees of effectiveness.

Flipping through that day’s paper, Chase talks about sponsored print ads and points to the weather page, on which a termite-removal company has placed an advertisement. “Their business has to do with weather, so instead of just running their ads all over the paper, let’s let them sponsor the weather page, do some messaging that ties their product into weather,” he says. Perhaps your picture of innovation doesn’t exactly resemble a print ad on the weather page (itself quite an anachronism, considering the weather app on your phone). Chase admits the demands of the newsroom aren’t conducive to long-term thinking. “We’re not planning for 400 years from now,” he says. “We’re planning for next Tuesday.” He doesn’t have much choice.

BANG is owned by Digital First Media, headquartered in Denver and owned by Alden Global Capital, a hedge fund headquartered in New York and owned by Randall Duncan Smith. Nobody owns Mr. Smith. In fact, nobody seems to know much about Mr. Smith. One of the few stories about him—a 1999 Village Voice takedown—quotes an acquaintance of his: “‘Randy is so rich he’s the kind of guy who divests himself every couple of years,’ so he doesn’t make the lists of the world’s richest people.” Two years ago, Alden tried to sell off Digital First to Apollo Global Management, a private equity firm, for $400 million. Apollo declined. When I call Alden’s offices, the person who answers does a good job sounding sincere. “I know that Randy will definitely not give you an interview,” she says. “I don’t think anyone will talk to you.” This turns out to be true.

Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor and digital media startup founder who lectures at UC Berkeley, wonders how much longer Digital First can last. “They’re running an ever-leaner business, and one of the signposts of that was the elimination of the individual papers,” he says, referring to the consolidation of the regional papers into the East Bay Times. “The question is, if this wasn’t a good enough solution to sustain the level of profitability that they’re looking for, at what point is it more trouble than it’s worth?”

When local newspapers disappear, civic engagement has been shown to decrease.

Erin Brethauer for WIRED

At some point, it’s worth asking who, besides journalists, actually cares about newspapers. Most Americans don’t read one. Only 20 percent of adults in the US get news regularly from a print paper, the Pew Research Center found last year; that drops to 5 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds. As Mutter argues, newspapers have “lost readership, revenue, and relevance.”

There was a time not too long ago when you might get off work and buy a paper to see how your stocks performed. “Now,” Mutter says, “I sit there all day long poking at my iPhone to see whether Apple stock is up 2 cents or down 2 cents.” If you glance through a smattering of local papers—in print or online—you’ll see that a lot of what they do hasn’t changed in 30-plus years. Why do so many local papers, the East Bay Times included, still have international and national sections, when the Post or the Times are a tap away? Why still include travel sections when TripAdvisor, NatGeo Traveler, and any number of other sites are easily accessible (and better)? Why does the business section still publish stock quotes when they’re out of date by the time they’re printed? Why why why?

Yet to dismiss newspapers as dinosaurs that deserve to die is to see a paper as somehow apart from the community it serves. Consider the Ghost Ship. After the fire, a civil suit brought by victims’ parents against the warehouse owners cited reporting done by the East Bay Times; the paper remains the only news outlet aggressively covering the incident. In December 2016 The New York Times made a big deal of the team of reporters it was sending to cover the tragedy in a series of stories; this year it has run two pieces in the series.

Even with bureaus in other cities—increasingly a rarity—national outlets simply can’t replace a local paper’s roots, argues DeBolt, one of the reporters on the Ghost Ship fire. “I have connections to the Ghost Ship through friends who lost friends,” he says. “They wanted the stories told by people who understand Oakland, who live here, who are their neighbors. Not by somebody who’s flying in from New York. Not to knock them, but we live here. We live and breathe the air, we know the neighborhoods, we know the people.” So what happens to a community in which nobody pays a DeBolt or Peele? What happens to a society in which an independent source of information simply disappears?

Up the road, in Oregon, there’s a man who studies such questions for a living. Lee Shaker, a professor at Portland State University, is one of a few American communications scholars to focus on local newspapers. (“From an academic perspective it’s not that great a career move,” he admits.) In 2009 he decided to look at what effect, if any, a newspaper’s closure had on its community. The year before, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer shuttered its print operations and Denver’s Rocky Mountain News went out of business. (That left The Seattle Times and The Denver Post.) He compared 2008 and 2009 government data that asked citizens a range of “civic engagement” questions, from whether they had contacted a public official in the previous year to how often they shared a meal with family members.

“What my research showed was that, in those two cities, civic engagement declined in a statistically significant way from 2008 to 2009, but across basically the other largest 20 cities in the United States there was no significant decrease in civic engagement,” Shaker says. This held true even after controlling for variables such as differences in the city’s economies. “Only in those two cities was there any evidence that civic engagement declined.” This suggested a causal relationship. “Other cities had no newspaper closures. Those cities had newspaper closures.”

Critically, Shaker’s research suggests that the decline in local news affects far more people than just those in the media. “You can kind of see this cascading series of consequences,” Shaker says. Here’s the scenario, as he describes it: “If people don’t get local news, they don’t know what’s going on in their community. If they don’t know what’s going on in their community, they don’t get involved in their community. If they’re not involved in their community, and others aren’t involved in their community, their government may not actually function very well. If people aren’t involved at the local level, and they don’t know what’s going on, and the government’s not performing at the local level, they start to lose trust. And when they start to lose trust, they start to have concerns about whether or not democracy is working, whether the government is working. And those feelings are naturally then extended to the national government.”