Bobbie Foust, still reporting at 90, wins Al Smith Award for public service through community journalism in Kentucky

Bobbie Foust

Bobbie Foust, for decades a fixture in West Kentucky journalism, is the winner of the 2024 Al Smith Award for public service through community journalism by a Kentuckian, presented by the Institute for Rural Journalism at the University of Kentucky and the Bluegrass Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Foust has edited three newspapers in the region and reported for others, and though she just turned 90, she is still covering city council meetings according to her decades-old approach: “Be honest, be accurate; be open with people, be kind when I can, but perform the journalistic function: report the facts and let the results fall where they may.”

In semi-retirement Foust is also writing historical articles about the region, and continuing her community service. In 2018, she served as the news-media liaison and adviser for a group of Marshall County High School students who sought gun-control measures after a mass shooting at the school in the pro-gun county. One of the parents, Gloria Hollifield, said in an award nomination, “She has the tenacity and the courage to stand for what is right, regardless of the backlash she undoubtedly faced.”

While Foust was not acting as a journalist in that role, she was using her journalism experience and skills to perform a public service, said Al Cross, director emeritus of the rural-journalism institute and secretary of the SPJ chapter. “In community journalism, journalists are by definition members of the community they serve, sometimes in ways other than journalism,” he said. “Bobbie has made clear since supposedly retiring eight years ago that she will continue to help her neighbors with journalism and other community service.”

Foust retired from the Herald-Ledger in Eddyville in January 2016, but has continued to write for The Paducah Sun and The Lake News in Calvert City, and cover the Calvert City council for the Benton Tribune-Courier, which she edited twice. She also edited the Marshall County Messenger and was editor of the Eddyville paper in her first stint there.

She has interviewed Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Billy Graham; covered executions at the Kentucky State Penitentiary; and has long followed the evolution and devolution of Land Between the Lakes, the recreation area created on 170,000 acres that the Tennessee Valley Authority took from people living between Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. As TVA prepared to give up the LBL to the Forest Service, and Foust tried to hold officials’ feet to the fire, TVA Board Chair “Craven [Crowell] got to where he wouldn’t talk to me,” Foust recalled, adding that in her career, “That has been the continuing story that I feel like may have benefited the citizenry.”

Foust began her career at Calvert City’s first newspaper, the Valley Sun, in 1961. The newspaper closed the next year, but Foust said she freelanced as she dealt with “four little curtain-climbers” that she brought into the world from 1956 to 1959. In 1968 she joined The Calvert News and then its parent paper, the Benton Tribune-Democrat, and then its successor, the Tribune Courier. She joined the startup Marshall County Messenger as editor in 1977 and returned to the Tribune Courier in 1979, becoming editor in 1980.

Foust made the Tribune Courier a National Blue Ribbon Newspaper, an award given by the National Newspaper Foundation, and won many awards from the Kentucky Press Association, including Freedom of Information, Community Service, news and sports reporting, and photography. But she fell out with the paper’s owner, Walt Dear, and went to work with her friend Frances Baccus at the Eddyville paper, where she was editor. When it sold three and a half years later, she joined The Paducah Sun, the regional daily, and stayed seven years, until she turned 65.

She and her husband Ray Foust traveled widely, but she also helped with special projects at the Sun, and in 2001 Editor Jim Paxton made her editor of the Tribune Courier, which his family media company had purchased. She left 20 months later when her husband suffered a terminal illness, but after his death again she joined the Herald Ledger, by then also a Paxton paper, as a reporter. Even after she left the job in 2016, she kept doing journalism “because I love it,” she says. “I will probably write something the day that I die. . . . I’m curious about what’s going on; I love interaction with people.”

Institute for Rural Journalism Director Benjy Hamm said, “Few journalists in Kentucky history can match the longevity and level of service that Bobbie Foust has provided as a reporter and editor to numerous communities in the commonwealth since 1961. She exhibits many of the qualities of Al Smith – including a lifetime of service – and is a worthy recipient of the award named for him.”

Bluegrass SPJ President Casey Parker-Bell of KET, a fellow native of the Jackson Purchase, said, “Bobbie Foust’s story exemplifies the type of journalism that Kentucky needs. She has the tenacity and courage all journalists should strive for, and is deserving of this year’s Al Smith Award.”

The award is named for the late Albert P. Smith Jr., who was the driving force for creation of the Institute for Rural Journalism, headed its advisory board and was its chair emeritus until his death in 2021. He published newspapers in Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, was founding producer and host of KET’s “Comment on Kentucky,” and federal co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission. He was the first winner of the award, in 2011.

Foust will be honored at the Al Smith Awards Dinner Oct. 10 at the Embassy Suites Lexington on Newtown Pike, near Interstate 64/75. She will be joined by Eric Meyer, editor-publisher of the Marion County Record in Kansas, the 2024 winner of the Institute’s national Tom and Pat Gish Award for courage, tenacity and integrity in rural journalism, along with winners of chapter scholarships. The guest speaker will be Campbell Robertson, who covers Kentucky and other states for The New York Times. For updates see www.RuralJournalism.org.

Besides Smith, previous winners of the Smith Award, and their affiliations at the time, are:
2012: Jennifer P. Brown, Kentucky New Era; and Max Heath, Landmark Community Newspapers
2013: John Nelson, Danville Advocate-Messenger
2014: Bill Bishop and Julie Ardery, The Daily Yonder
2015: Carl West, The State Journal, Frankfort
2016: Sharon Burton, Adair County Community Voice and The Farmer’s Pride
2017: Ryan Craig, Todd County Standard, and the late Larry Craig, Green River Republican
2018: Stevie Lowery, The Lebanon Enterprise
2019: David Thompson, Kentucky Press Association
2020: Becky Barnes, The Cynthiana Democrat
2021: WKMS News, Murray State University
2022: Chris and Allison Evans, The Crittenden Press, Marion
2023: Ben Gish and Sam Adams, The Mountain Eagle, Whitesburg

New rule closes the 'gun show loophole' and will require more sellers to register as licensed firearms dealers

The new rule will dramatically increase firearm purchase
background checks. (PBS News Hour photo)

To deliver on gun control policy promises, the Biden administration has expanded the number of sellers who must register as federally licensed firearms dealers, reports Glenn Thrush and Erica L. Green of The New York Times. "That means those sellers must run background criminal and mental health checks on potential buyers. . . . [The change] is the broadest expansion of federal background checks and an attempt to regulate the shadow market of weapons sold online, at gun shows and through private sellers that have contributed to gun violence."

Although President Biden was blocked from implementing universal background checks for gun buyers, the administration used the bipartisan gun control law passed in 2022 to "achieve an elusive policy goal that enjoys widespread public support: closing the so-called gun show loophole," Thrush and Green write. "The new regulation, which is likely to face legal challenges, could add as many as 23,000 federal dealers to the 80,000 already regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

In many states, the gun show loophole allowed "unlicensed private sellers to legally sell at gun shows, out of their houses and through online platforms without having to submit to the background check system created to prevent sales to children, criminals, domestic abusers, and people with mental illnesses or drug addictions," the Times reports. "Four in 10 illegal gun cases tracked by the bureau from 2017 to 2021 involved such unregulated sales."

The new rule aims to accomplish two goals. It will "pull legitimate sellers into the regulatory sunlight and, second, to deprive brokers who knowingly traffic in criminal gun sales of a legal shield provided by the vagaries of federal firearms laws," Thrush and Green explain. Previous rules required gun sellers who made their chief income selling guns to join the federal system, but that wording has changed and now includes sellers who "predominantly derive a profit" to register. "Failing to register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines."

UPDATED: NRA's tax returns show declines in revenue, assets, member dues; longtime leader says he's quitting

Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway, Daily Beast via Getty

Despite its reputation as an organization with a powerful political reach, the National Rifle Association has been on a downward spiral sparked by declining revenue, internal fighting and alleged mismanagement. "Over the last several years, the NRA has experienced a public implosion, as the group loses members and revenue amid serious accusations of mismanagement and corruption," reports Roger Sollenberger of The Daily Beast. 

NRA's popularity and power began to slide more than a decade ago. Sollenberger writes, "The gun rights group's tax filings and political spending over the last 15 years provides some of the clearest evidence of its downfall. . . . Its most recent tax return, filed in November of this year for 2022, reveals dramatic declines along almost every conceivable metric: revenue, assets, member dues, lobbying, and political spending — with conversely sharp increases in legal costs and deficits."

The New York Times also reported that "On the eve of a legal battle in New York, Wayne LaPierre told board members on Friday that he would step down as the longtime chief of the National Rifle Association" effective Jan. 31. The Times reported that LaPierre "has led the organization for more than three decades. But his resignation came as he faced his gravest challenge yet, a corruption trial in Manhattan amid a legal showdown with New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. Jury selection has already begun and opening arguments were scheduled for early next week."

In 2010, the NRA wielded a powerful lobby. But in the wake of extreme gun violence in the U.S., 15 GOP senators "repudiated the NRA, passing the first meaningful gun control package in decades," Sollenberger writes. "That could be a signal of the NRA's demise, but it also could be interpreted as a reaction to the surging gun violence that continues to this day."

Regardless of why and how political favor and donor sentiment have changed, "The NRA today is in a dismal state. On the income side, 2022 was the fourth year in a row that revenue fell, marking its weakest fundraising year since at least 2008," Sollenberger reports. "Membership dues are at all-time lows, according to available public data, and staffing is at the lowest point since those costs began their downward plunge in 2016." 

Despite those numbers, NRA spokesman Billy McLaughlin said in a statement to the Daily Beast that the NRA remains the largest and most effective gun rights organization. 

Guns 'destroyed' in community buy-back programs often have parts that are removed and resold

A background check is usually not required to purchase a parts
kit from Gunbusters. (Gunbusters photo via the Times)

Community leaders and well-meaning citizens have encouraged gun destruction programs, but in truth, only some parts are destroyed and other parts are removed and resold, reports Mike McIntire of The New York Times. "Communities are fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required, according to interviews and a review of gun disposal contracts, patent records and online listings for firearms parts."

People may think relinquished guns are melted down or pulverized because gun disposal companies market "destruction," but that's not the whole story. "This little-known but profitable corner of the firearms economy exists because the approved method of destroying a gun contains a loophole that has been exploited," McIntire explains. "To be able to say a gun is destroyed, disposal companies crush or cut up a single piece that federal law classifies as a firearm: the receiver or frame that anchors the other components and contains the required serial number. The businesses can then sell the remaining parts as a kit: barrel, trigger, grip, slide, stock, springs — essentially the entire gun, minus the regulated piece."

McIntire reports: "Some public officials and gun safety advocates said they had no clue this was happening. The Rev. Chris Yaw, whose Episcopal church outside Detroit has sponsored buybacks with local officials, said in an interview that he was 'aghast and appalled' when told by a reporter how the process works."

Part of the reason gun destruction companies sell parts is because their service is free. Scott Reed, president of the Gunbusters company, which patented a firearms "pulverizer," told McIntire, "Our services are free for law enforcement agencies. If we can't cover our costs by selling parts, then we charge them." McIntire reports, "Only about two percent of Gunbusters' clients pay to have the full firearm destroyed, he said. Federal agencies, including the Secret Service, are among them."

It's hard to know if those gun parts wind up back on the streets. "Salvaged gun parts typically do not include a serial number that can be traced," McIntire writes. "But while the parts kits have legitimate uses, they could also further the spread of so-called ghost guns when paired with an untraceable receiver or frame, said Nicholas Suplina, a senior lawyer with Everytown for Gun Safety. The number of do-it-yourself ghost guns turning up in violent crimes has surged, made possible by unfinished components — prefabricated metal pieces that need welding and drilling — that are not serialized, and often do not require a background check when purchased separately."

CMT drops Aldean's 'Try That in a Small Town', which suggests gun-control supporters want to confiscate firearms

Jason Aldean in Nashville last month (Photo by
Monica Murray, Variety, via Getty Images and Axios)

Country Music Television has stopped airing Jason Aldean's music video for "Try That in a Small Town," which suggests that gun-control supporters want to confiscate firearms, something very few of them advocate. Almost all the media play about it has been about its alleged racism, with hardly any attention to the misleading lyric about guns.

Aldean signs, "Got a gun that my granddad gave me. They say one day they're gonna round up. Well, that s--t might fly in the city, good luck. Try that in a small town. See how far you make it down the road. Around here, we take care of our own. You cross that line, it won't take long for you to find out. I recommend you don't."

A CMT spokesperson confirmed the decision to Adam Tamburin of Axios Nashville, who reports, "Critics say the song strikes a threatening tone while criticizing gun control and protests against police. The video, which was released Friday, splices videos of fires, crimes and burning flags with protest images. Aldean, one of the biggest stars in country music, defended the song on social media Tuesday, saying he's been unfairly accused of releasing 'a pro-lynching song' that was critical of the Black Lives Matter movement." He did not mention the gun-control aspect of the song.

CNN notes that Aldean, an outspoken conservative, "was performing at the Route 91 Music Harvest Festival in Las Vegas in 2017 when a gunman shot repeatedly into the crowd, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more. The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in American history."

Aldean's wife Brittany is a "right-wing influencer," Emily Nussbaum reports for The New Yorker in a long story about Nashville and the country-music industry being divided by politics. When singer Maren Morris called Brittany Aldean 'Insurrection Barbie,' Jason Aldean "encouraged a concert audience to boo Morris’s name. Both sides had sold merch off the clash. The Aldeans hawked Barbie shirts reading 'don’t tread on our kids.' Morris fans could buy a shirt that read 'lunatic country-music person' — Tucker Carlson’s nickname for her — and another bearing the slogan 'you have a seat at this table.' She donated the proceeds to LGBTQ charities."

UPDATE, July 25: Black Lives Matter images in the video have been removed. 

Gun-violence prevention should include gun education and understanding gun ownership, a rural Westerner writes

Illustration by Zoe van Dijk, The Washington Post

In the broad swaths of the landscape that constitute rural America, there are many reasons for gun ownership. Education writer Maddy Butcher of Montezuma County, in the southwest corner of Colorado, shares her thoughts in "What city dwellers don't get about gun ownership in the rural West," a piece for The Washington Post. She focuses on a visit to the area by Jonathan McMillan, director of Colorado's new Office of Gun Violence Prevention:

"We had gathered for McMillan's recent 'listening tour' stop in Cortez, held at the county annex building just off Main Street. Over dinner, served from foil catering trays onto paper plates, many of the more than 100 attendees told McMillan and his team about their concerns, mostly centered on the potential disruption of what until recently has been gun-toting normality in the rural West. . . . Folks here have a lot of thoughts on gun-violence prevention, beliefs that likely do not align with those living in cities and suburbs. . . . One value did bubble up that I think anyone could embrace: the need for education.

"The message from rural dwellers with many reasons for gun ownership was clear: Don't shun guns. Get to know them. Teach your kids about using them safely. . . . Thanks to my parents, I learned how to handle guns when I was young. . . . As rural areas absorb more people from the cities, conversations around responsible gun ownership and classes for safe gun handling are more essential, not less. Guns are ubiquitous here. For shooting prairie dogs and rattlesnakes. For hunting deer and elk. For putting down a suffering animal. For deterring predators. For fun. . . . Even if folks here raise their children in gun-free homes, with a shun-gun approach, the kids will likely still come across one at a friend's house or during a gravel-road hangout after a team practice or in a pickup truck or back pasture. . . . According to the gun-violence-prevention organization Everytown, there have been at least 136 unintentional shootings by children, resulting in 55 deaths. Would your child be able to handle a gun safely?

"During McMillan's stop, a gray-haired woman told him that her grandson called her 'evil' for owning guns. She implored McMillan to bring hunter education back to schools and to 'teach our kids not to hate guns.' . . . I wish more urbanites and suburbanites could hear these passionate appeals to be understood from a part of the country where guns may be plentiful but mass shootings are not. . . . It's true that in rural Western states, where scant resources and social stigma around mental health are chronic problems, suicide by firearm is too common. But high rural homicide rates occur predominantly in the Southeast. . . .

"McMillan prefaced the meeting by saying, 'There is no one-size, quick or simple solution' to gun violence. . . . This is especially true for women like me, moms who want nothing to do with 'patriots' or preppers. Be careful about gun-owner stereotyping: We may recycle, wear Patagonia puffies and feel strongly about our preferred shotguns and rifles. We see that the tendency today is for virulent, if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us side-taking. But why?"

Once a shunned gun, the AR-15 is now America's most popular firearm; it was never intended for public use

Image from The Washington Post

How did a gun that was never made for mass use become America's favorite? The AR-15's beginnings are quiet: "Originally designed as a soldiers’ rifle in the late 1950s. 'An outstanding weapon with phenomenal lethality,' an internal Pentagon report raved. It soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War, where the weapon earned a new name: the M16," report Todd C. Frankel, Shawn Boburg, Josh Dawsey, Ashley Parker and Alex Horton of The Washington Post. "Few gunmakers saw a semiautomatic version of the rifle as a product for ordinary people. It didn’t seem suited for hunting. It seemed like overkill for home defense. Gun executives doubted many buyers would want to spend their money on one. . . . The industry’s biggest trade shows banished the AR-15 to the back."

The move to market the AR-15 "began after the 2004 expiration of a federal assault weapons ban that had blocked the sales of many semiautomatic rifles. A handful of manufacturers saw a chance to ride a post-9/11 surge in military glorification. . . . This transformation — from made-for-combat weapon to mass-market behemoth and cultural flash point — is the product of a sustained and intentional effort that has forged an American icon," the Post writes. Randy Luth, the founder of gunmaker DPMS, one of the earliest companies to market AR-15s, told the Post, “We made it look cool. The same reason you buy a Corvette.”

The numbers tell the story: "Ten of the 17 deadliest U.S. mass shootings since 2012 have involved AR-15s. . . . after repeated mass killings involving the AR-15 that accounted for some of the nation’s darkest moments, efforts in Congress to resurrect an assault weapons ban repeatedly fizzled," the Post reports. "Calls by Democratic politicians to renew the ban fell short, with some in their own party voting against it at key moments. Almost no Republican would even entertain the idea." Sen. Chris Murphy, a vocal supporter of stronger gun laws, told the Post, “The protection of the AR-15 has become the number one priority for the gun lobby. It makes it harder to push this issue on the table because the gun lobby does so much messaging around it.”

Associated Press table from Northeastern U. Mass Killing Database

"Today, the AR-15 is the best-selling rifle in the United States, industry figures indicate. About 1 in 20 U.S. adults — or roughly 16 million people — own at least one AR-15. . . . Today, the industry estimates that at least 20 million AR-15s are stored and stashed across the country," the Post reports. "Video games introduced a new generation to the AR-15 through popular first-person shooter games such as 'Call of Duty.' Players got to simulate using military weapons with down-to-the-bolt realism."

The Post provides an AR-15 convert as an example: "Bill Shanley saw his first AR-15 up close when one of his adult sons came home with one in 2010. Father and son took the AR-15 to a gun range. Shanley couldn’t believe how loud it was. . . . . But the black rifle had little recoil. It was fun to shoot. Three shots with his old hunting rifle bruised his shoulder. Fifty rounds with the AR-15 felt like a breeze. Shanley was sold. He soon bought his own, a Smith & Wesson M&P 15." Shanley told the Post, "The AR is the modern-day musket."

"The AR-15 was also especially alluring to the gunman who killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo in May 2022," the Post writes. "'The AR-15 and its variants are very deadly when used properly,' he wrote in a manifesto filled with hateful vitriol. 'Which is the reason I picked one.'. . . Ten days later, 19 schoolchildren and two adults were shot to death in Uvalde, Tex., with another AR-15, the Daniel Defense DDM4."

Armed protesters are increasingly using their Second Amendment rights to chill others' First Amendment rights

Armed protestors at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix
Jan. 6. (Photo by Adriana Zehbrauskas, The New York Times)

Armed civilians are increasingly appearing at public protests and rallies, as some Americans believe it's their right to carry a gun almost anywhere, reports Mike McIntire of The New York Times.

"The frequency of these incidents exploded in 2020, with conservative push-back against public-health measures to fight the coronavirus and response to the sometimes violent rallies after the murder of George Floyd," McIntire writes. "Today, in some parts of the country with permissive gun laws, it is not unusual to see people with handguns or military-style rifles at all types of protests."

 
While a June Supreme Court ruling established the right to carry a gun outside the home, some Americans feel that the presence of firearms hampers the democratic process and deepens the country's political divides. "But the effects of more guns in public spaces have not been evenly felt. A partisan divide — with Democrats largely eschewing firearms and Republicans embracing them — has warped civic discourse. Deploying the Second Amendment in service of the First has become a way to buttress a policy argument, a sort of silent, if intimidating, bullhorn." McIntire says, "The loosening of limits has occurred as violent political rhetoric rises and the police in some places fear bloodshed among an armed populace on a hair trigger."

The midterm election in Arizona is an example, McIntire reports: "Armed protesters appeared outside elections center in Phoenix, hurling baseless accusations that the election for governor had been stolen from the Republican, Kari Lake." Also, "In October, Proud Boys with guns joined a rally in Nashville where conservative lawmakers spoke against transgender medical treatments for minors."

Kevin Thompson, executive director of the Museum of Science & History in Memphis, told McIntire that armed protesters prompted the cancellation of an LGBTQ+ event. “It’s disappointing we’ve gotten to that state in our country. What I saw was a group of folks who did not want to engage in any sort of dialogue and just wanted to impose their belief."

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller "made clear that gun rights were not unlimited, and that its ruling did not invalidate laws prohibiting 'the carrying of firearms in sensitive places,'," McIntire writes. "More broadly, there is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended for Americans to take up arms during civic debate among themselves — or to intimidate those with differing opinions."

Newspapers are in a battle for the truth and they must innovate to win it, weekly publisher says in accepting award

Chris Evans of The Crittenden Press in Marion, Ky., spoke after receiving the Al Smith Award for public service through community journalism by Kentuckians, which he shared with his wife, Allison Mick-Evans. They own the weekly newspaper in Crittenden County, pop. 9,000. (Photo by Yung Soo Kim, University of Kentucky School of Journalism and Media)

The loss of community newspapers "has left our country ripe for an invasion of mistruth," and the remaining newspapers must adapt to the digital age to survive, an innovative weekly editor-publisher told an audience of journalists and their supporters Thursday night in Lexington, Ky.

Chris Evans and his wife, Allison Mick-Evans, of The Crittenden Press in Marion, Ky., received the Al Smith Award for public service through community journalism from the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues (publisher of The Rural Blog) and the Bluegrass Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. The award citation mentions that the Press was an early adopter of online journalism and uses it frequently to serve Crittenden County, pop. 9,000.

Evans recalled a statement attributed to World War II Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade [the] mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

"We are losing community newspapers, one blade of grass at a time," Evans said. "Losing those town criers has left our country ripe for an invasion of mistruth. Study after study has found that the most trusted media are local.  . . . Forces that are eroding national trust in media can be blamed on two things. One if that blurred line between commentary and news, and No. 2 is that there is a decline in rural journalism. Myths are finding a foothold in our society because there isn't a journalist in every county and every parish in the country. There's not a journalist behind every blade of grass.

"Friends, we are being disarmed by a natural ally: the Information Age. In days gone by, we were a nation of small-town newspapers: trusted local sources of information that helped debunk lies and exaggerations. Part of the reason The Big Lie and fake news prevail is our society today is because we have lost the voice of truth, the voice behind every blade of grass. Well-trained journalists who made mom-and-pop ink one of the strongest collective corporations in America are fading. They're fading from our Main Streets, our courthouses and from our city halls. A newspaper in every town was the underpinning of America's First Amendment and the freedom of information. An armed journalist behind every bush is the caretaker of truth."

Evans quoted from the Gospel according to Luke: "To those whom much is given, much is expected." He wears the quote on his wrist.

"As journalists we have been given the keys to a powerful platform," he said. "Our industry, our presentation of the truth, is deeply rooted in American culture, but it is changing. The trust we have given must not be taken for granted. Much is expected of us, and we have an obligation to see that it long endures. Our power rests on our ability to innovate and persevere. To do that, we are going to have to morph into something a bit different. . . . The internet has given us a new, less expensive mode of delivery. Now, I am not proposing that we all stop our presses today, but we have to embrace the future. We cannot be too stubborn or too proud. Honestly, the same innovation that has bloodied our noses can be repackaged and deployed as community news. . . . We're reluctant to admit the truth because we have always printed newspapers. . . . We just have to convince ourselves and our advertisers to go with us. We do not need to convince our readers. They're already there. 

"As the town crier, we've got to have the loudest voice, but right now we're being muffled by social media. We have to create our own platform, pool our resources and figure out whether it's an app or a network or something else, but our model must change. I don't know that anyone in the newspaper industry has really figured out how to make that move. . . . If we don't find a way to change our model . . . we're going to die. . . . We must keep community-based reporting behind every blade of grass, or we are going to lose that war on truth. We have to do it with reporting, podcasting, webcasting, livestreams or whatever else we can package as trusted content and sell it. . . . We are simply going down with the ship rather than getting on a lifeboat that exists right before our eyes."

Noting that he has coached over 40 years, Evans said a coach has to ask before a game, "What will I do in the heat of the moment when what I am doing is not working? We have to be able to adapt. To be a winner you must have a plan and a backup plan. . . .What is your plan? I'd like to know. What's our plan? My question and my challenge to all of us in the business of community journalism is this: Are we going to keep making buggy whips or are we going to analyze, adapt and overcome? How do we keep a reporter behind each blade of grass? I welcome your input, because I want to know what people are thinking. We are all in this together, and together we can find a way forward."

Some N.Y. sheriffs say they won't enforce the state's new law banning concealed weapons in many public places

Several sheriffs in upstate New York say they don't plan on aggressively enforcing the state's new law that forbids concealed weapons in a long list of public spaces "including, but not limited to, government buildings and religious centers, health facilities and homeless shelters, schools and subways, stadiums and state parks," reports Jesse McKinley and Cole Louison for The New York Times. In an interview Wayne County Sheriff Robert Milby said the law covers "basically everywhere. If anyone thinks we’re going to go out and take a proactive stance against this, that’s not going to happen."

Sheriff Robert Milby
(Lauren Petracca for The New York Times)

The legislature passed the law over the summer. It took effect Sept. 1 but its legality has been the subject of court battles. Last week, a federal judge blocked large portions of it. The New York State Sheriffs' Association called the law a "thoughtless, reactionary action" that punishes law-abiding citizens. The sheriff of mostly rural Montgomery County said that almost every household in his jurisdiction had some sort of gun. Mike Filicetti, the sheriff in Niagara County, said his office will make no arrests on the law without his authorization and that the law is "a very, very low priority for me."

Supporters of the law accused the sheriffs of endangering the public for not supporting the law, McKinley and Louison report. David Pucino, the deputy chief counsel at Giffords Law Center, which works to lessen gun violence, said that several states have laws restricting concealed weapons in places like airports, courthouses and bars. “The statements that we’ve been seeing here are ideological statements,” Pucino said of the sheriffs. “And that’s not an appropriate basis for a sheriff to enforce or not enforce laws.”

Gun roundup: Rural firearm death rates rose 88% in 2010-2020; a profile of 'good guys with guns' in rural Georgia . . .

Gun homicide rates per 100,000 residents
(Washington Post charts sourced from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data).

Gun death rates rose in urban, suburban and rural areas of the U.S. from 2010 to 2020, and much more in rural areas, the Post reports. The rural rate rose 88 percent; suburban and urban rates rose 67% and 58%, respectively. States with easier access to firearms tend to show steeper increases in gun deaths, the data show. Rural gun deaths are more likely to be due to suicide than homicide.

Stephanie McCrummen of The Washington Post has an interesting and nuanced profile of two cousins in rural Georgia, ages 23 and 18, who worry about gun violence, but believe a "good guy with a gun" can help in emergencies. Read it here.

Marshall County, in rural North Carolina, is stocking its schools with AR-15s to try to prevent a mass shooting, Joe Marusak reports for The Charlotte Observer. The sheriff said the caches will give deputies quick access to more high-powered firearms in such emergencies. County officials welcomed the notion, which county residents paid for with private donations. However, an education professor who has long studied school safety warns that the presence of the firearms increases the likelihood of accidents and violence.

Supreme Court curbs limits on the right to carry guns in public, as the Senate passes a bipartisan gun-violence bill

Though the overturn of Roe v. Wade is getting top billing in most news media, the nation's highest court issued another landmark decision this week.

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that law-abiding Americans have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, issuing a watershed constitutional ruling against firearm restrictions as the nation reels from a spate of mass shootings and its political leaders are divided over how to curb such violence," Robert Barnes and Ann Marimow report for The Washington Post. "The court’s conservatives prevailed in a 6-to-3 decision that struck a New York law requiring a special need for carrying a weapon and puts at risk similar laws in Maryland, California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Massachusetts."

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment must be subject to the same rules as other amendments: "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that there have been more than 275 mass shootings in the U.S. since January, and that gun violence is the top cause of death for American children. Case law of the Second Amendment allows state and local governments to address gun violence, he wrote, but the Supreme Court ruling will make that more difficult.

Also on Thursday, the Senate sent the House on a vote of 65-33 a bipartisan gun-violence bill that marks the most significant such legislation in decades. The House passed it 234-193 Friday, mostly along party lines, The Associated Press reports, and President Biden is expected to sign it. One of the 14 House Republicans voting for it was Tony Gonzales, whose district includes Uvalde, Texas.

The politics of gun control: Senators for bill say calls run in favor of it, but most are insulated from voters' retribution

Most of the 14 Republican senators who voted to advance the bipartisan gun-violence bill have political insulation, and others say they're doing what their constituents want.

Todd Young of Indiana told Mike DeBonis of The Washington Post. that his calls were "about 10 to 1 . . . in favor of reasonable prohibitions." Joni Ernst of Iowa told The New York Times that her calls from constituents were 6 to 1 in favor of "doing something."

To the south, opinion was generally more mixed and often hostile. Missouri's senators split, with retiring Roy Blunt for the bill and conservative firebrand Josh Hawley outspokenly against it and trying to change the subject. “People are absolutely furious that this bill does not do anything meaningful to address the national crime wave,” he told the Post.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the chief Republican architect of the deal, said last week that gun owners' support for the framework being filled in at the time was "off the charts, overwhelming." But gun owners for whom the Second Amendment is a voting issue may be a different story; Cornyn was roundly booed at his state party convention last weekend.

Both North Carolina senators, retiring Richard Burr and fellow Republican Thom Tillis, endorsed the bill. Tillis told the Times, “When . . . people fully understand what we’re doing and more importantly, what we’re not doing, it’s not a difficult discussion for me to have in North Carolina.” Republican Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said likewise.

The six-year terms of Tillis and Capito end in 2026, as do those of Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and the other Southern Republicans for the bill, Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. Other Republicans for it include Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who are retiring.

The only Republicans who voted to advance for the bill and are seeking re-election this year are Young and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; "neither is particularly worried about losing support from their party’s conservative base," notes Emily Cochrane of the Times. Young has already been renominated without opposition, and Murkowski "voted to convict President Donald J. Trump at his 2021 impeachment trial ... is running for re-election as a moderate [and] has repeatedly been rewarded by voters for her independent streak."

McConnell's support of the bill "was a sign that some Republicans have calculated that, given the scale of public outrage over mass shootings, their party could not afford to be seen as blocking a modest compromise on gun safety in an election year," the Times reports.

"No player was more crucial," DeBonis writes. "McConnell, however, finds himself in the minority of a divided Republican conference — a position he usually tries to avoid. . . . McConnell’s allies said there was political logic to the decision to cut a modest deal with Democrats and demonstrate to the public that the GOP is not an immovable obstacle to action to address the drumbeat of mass shootings."

David Catanese of McClatchy Newspapers, the regional D.C.-based reporter who pays the most attention to McConnell (for the Lexington Herald-Leader), gets insight from lobbyist Liam Donovan, a former Senate campaign aide: "Donovan surmised that even though the loudest voices on the right are angered, the GOP leader sees a political upside. He now has another significant vote in his pocket that he can hold up when Democrats complain the filibuster needs to be broken or amended to accomplish a legislative goal." And maybe a way to quiet the issue for a while.

“Base blowback is a sunk cost, having pursued a deal,” Donovan told Catanese. “You have to balance the prospect of a divisive vote with the fact that this is their last, best chance to take the issue off the table for the foreseeable future, and on relatively favorable terms.”

Bipartisan gun deal includes funding for telehealth coverage for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program

In response to recent violent shootings, the Senate is moving an 80-page bipartisan deal meant to reduce gun violence. One provision, not widely reported, to expand telehealth coverage for patients with Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program coverage so more people can access mental health-care, Cara Smith reports for Inside Health Policy.

A maximum of 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Department of Health and Human Services would be required to provide technical assistance and guidance to states to improve telehealth access for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees. "The guidance would address adopting telehealth flexibilities to expand access to care, billing codes and practices, integrating telehealth services into value-based care models, strategies to deliver culturally competent care via telehealth and other best practices," Smith reports. The language in that part of the bill is identical to that of legislation released in May by the Senate Finance Committee.

"Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the lead Democratic negotiator, is hailing the bill as the biggest breakthrough on the issue of gun violence in 30 years and predicted Tuesday it would save lives," Alexander Bolton reports for The Hill. "Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the head Republican in the talks, says the legislation will take guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous or break the law but won’t affect the gun rights of law-abiding citizens."

Here are some other provisions in the bill:

• Enhanced background checks for gun buyers under 21, to search juvenile criminal records. This provision would expire in 2032, so a future Congress would have to vote to extend it.
• Expand a grant program that allows states to use federal funding to implement crisis-intervention programs to reduce gun violence. States could use the money to support "red flag" laws to take guns away from people deemed a danger to themselves or others but would not be required to have such laws, a key Republican point at the end of negotiations.
• Close the "boyfriend loophole," meaning a person convicted of misdemeanor violence against a recent dating partner would lose the right to buy or possess a firearm for at least five years.
• Require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide states with resources to expand mental-health programs in schools.
• Expand Medicaid funding for certified community behavioral health clinics, allowing up to 10 new states to opt into the program every 10 years.
• Establish a new, specific criminal offense for gun traffickers and straw purchasers with tougher penalties.

Senate's response to school shooting would boost rural mental-health care; Uvalde's GOP representative backs it

The U.S. Senate's response to the massacre of students and teachers in Uvalde, Texas, could include funding for mental-health treatment that will increase access to it in rural America. The framework of the agreement by 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans, and endorsed Tuesday by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, includes three mental-health measures:

• Expansion of a key method of funding community behavioral-health clinics
• Funds to help families and youth access mental health services via telehealth
• Beefing up school mental-health services, such as early identification and intervention

Other points in the framework include funding to encourage states to implement “red flag” laws that let authorities keep guns away from those deemed by a judge to represent a potential threat. The legislative language of the bill being drafted.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wants the legislation to include some mental-health ideas from his committee, whose jurisdiction includes health care. But even if it doesn't, Wyden hopes momentum will remain "for a separate mental health package later, especially since the gun violence prevention framework doesn’t mention substance-use-disorder services," reports Dorothy Mills-Gregg of Inside Health Policy.

Many rural communities lack behavioral-health centers. Mills-Gregg reports, "Telehealth is a cost-effective tool and provides a natural opportunity for young people who are especially adept at using technology, Wyden said."

The framework of the deal was endorsed by Republican U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, whose district includes Uvalde. He told Fox News Radio's Guy Benson, "This bill is going to have is going to invest more in mental health than at any other point in our nation’s history. . . . mental health clinics, especially in rural America, that they don’t have the resources."

Uvalde paper calls for 'sensible' gun laws, publishes testimony of reporter who lost a daughter in the shooting

The day before senators announced a deal in principle to respond the shooting of students and teachers in Uvalde, Texas, the local newspaper declared, "In its timidity to act, Congress guarantees the suffering will continue."

Lexi Rubio with her parents, Kimberly and Felix

The twice-weekly Uvalde Leader-News also published the testimony of Kimberly Mata-Rubio, its former News assistant editor and current staff writer, to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform. She was the mother of one of the murdered children. Mata-Rubio recalled what she went through the day of the shooting, including attending an awards ceremony for her daughter and other students shortly before the gunman arrived. The she made her case:

"Today, we stand for Lexi, and, as her voice, we demand action. We seek a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. We understand that for some reason, to some people, to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns, that guns are more important than children, so at this moment we ask for progress. We seek to raise the age to purchase these weapons from 18 to 21 years of age. We seek red flag laws, stronger background checks. We also want to repeal gun manufacturers liability immunity. . . . I’m a reporter, a student, a mom, a runner. I’ve read to my children since they were in the womb. My husband is a law enforcement officer, an Iraq War veteran. He loves fishing, and our babies. Somewhere out there, a mom is hearing our testimony and thinking to herself, 'I can’t even imagine their pain,' not knowing that our reality will one day be hers, unless we act now."

In its editorial, the newspaper urged mothers to "heed this prophetic warning" and said "Americans want responsible gun ownership. . . No single measure lawmakers adopt will put an end to the violence. we are a nation born to it. . . . But with sensible laws, we can reduce the body count." It also published endorsements of further gun control by local doctor Roy Guerrero and actor Matthew McConaughey, a native of Uvalde.

The newspaper's approach shows the importance of local newsrooms in such cases, CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy said on the channel's "Reliable Sources" program Sunday. Meanwhile, Nora Lopez, executive editor of the San Antonio Express-News, talked with Amaris Castillo of NPR for a Poynter Institute story about obstacles the daily paper is encountering to its coverage in Uvalde.

In Uvalde, some who own guns favor a higher legal age to buy them, and other measures; so does the local weekly

Front page of today's twice-weekly Uvalde Leader-News

"An anguished soul-searching over Texas’ gun culture and permissive gun laws is unfolding across the latest community to be shattered by a shooter’s rampage," Jack Healy and Nicole Kitroeff of The New York Times write from Uvalde, Texas.

"Uvalde, a largely Mexican American city of 15,200 near the U.S. southern border, is a far different place from Parkland, Fla., or Newtown, Conn., which became centers of grass-roots gun control activism in the aftermath of the school shootings there," the Times notes. "Gun ownership is threaded into life here in a county that has elected conservative Democrats and twice supported former President Donald J. Trump. Several relatives of victims count themselves among Texas’ more than one million gun owners. Some grew up hunting and shooting. Others say they own multiple guns for protection."

Healy and Kitroeff cite examples to illustrate the divided opinion in families and residents' own minds: "The grandfather of one boy killed on Tuesday said he always keeps a gun under the seat of his truck to protect his family; the boy’s grandmother now wants to limit gun access," and rancher Trey LaBorde, "who believes 'all these teachers should be armed' but he also wants more limits on gun access," including an assault-weapons ban. He told the Times, “I don’t think they should be sold. . . . Nobody hunts with those types of rifles. . . . I don’t think that anybody should be able to buy a gun unless they’re 25.”

And this, from the father of a victim: "Javier Cazares, whose daughter Jacklyn was killed inside Robb Elementary, carries a gun and fully supports the Second Amendment, having learned how to fire semiautomatic rifles at 18 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army. But he said the killing of Jacklyn and so many of her fourth-grade friends should force politicians into tightening gun measures." He told the Times, “There should be a lot stricter laws. To buy a weapon at 18 — it’s kind of ridiculous.”

An editorial in Sunday's Uvalde Leader-News makes the same point: "Why does an 18-year-old get to buy a semi-automatic rifle with high-capacity magazines when the legal age for acquiring a handgun is 21?" The editorial also criticized Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for saying gun violence in states with "real gun control" showed that it is not the answer: "If our governor and members of the U.S. Congress are waiting to hit upon a 'real solution,' school children will continue to die. There is no 'real solution,' no magic wand . . . There are, however, incremental solutions that when bound together form a more meaningful plan." Those include "universal background checks and /or waiting periods" for gun purchases, "hardening schools, identifying and treating mental health issues."

"Arming teachers, a popular solution in some circles, is as fatuous as it is dangerous," the editorial continues. It concludes, "Guns alone do not kill, but the culture the industry fosters in selling rapid-fire weapons with high-capacity magazines is designed to attract people who may feel threatened by an imagined enemy. These are not hunting or sporting arms, which are used respectfully by many of us in southwest Texas. These are killing machines, and the enemy too often has become our children. Our hearts bleed for the slain students and their families. We will remain Uvalde strong, for as long as it takes to ensure that Americans get to hug their kids at the end of each school day."

Back page of the front section and front page of the second section, with editorial and letters

Suggestions for localizing this week's big national story, and a look at how effective gun laws have been or might be

Tom Silvestri of The Relevance Project writes:

There is plenty of reporting to be done localizing the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. And Buffalo, N.Y. Consider initially documenting trends in three areas:
Gun ownership and gun purchases: Lots to consider. Start with what percentage of local households and commercial establishments own guns. If you want one focus, analyze statistics on the type of guns -- "assault rifle," long guns, or those that fire large amounts of bullets in short periods -- that were used in the New York and Texas mass shootings. Another focus: Guns being bought by individuals age 21 and under.
Mental health and treatment: If you want one focus, report how many people have been identified as threats and what happened after the initial inquiry. Explain how local authorities treat reports of dangerous individuals, antisocial behavior, or people in danger. Also: Describe in numbers your community's safety net to treat mental illness.
Deaths and injuries involving guns: Compare and contrast with other causes of death and injury.
If possible, analyze over the last 10 years. A narrower range could be the pandemic years as we are learning the dangers of prolonger isolation.
Added starter: Crime reports involving incidents on school properties.
In all efforts, stick to the facts. Run counter to today's "opinion first, facts later." Godspeed on such important, relevant coverage.

As calls for stricter gun control are debated, maybe we should ask, just how effective are gun laws? "Many proposed laws probably would not have much impact on curbing the mass shootings that dominate the news. But they could lessen their severity, and might also bring down overall gun violence," writes Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler. His analysis starts with a look at President Biden's claim that “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.” He pokes several holes Biden's claim but cites evidence that the 1994 assault-weapons law "may have been effective in reducing the death toll" by limiting large-capacity magazines.

Why does U.S. have a unique problem with guns, and why can't we fix it? Look to our rural history and federal structure

Today's front page of the local twice-weekly newspaper

By Al Cross

Director, Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, University of Kentucky

In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, President Biden asked when members of Congress would have the "backbone" to "stand up to the gun lobby." But the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment groups are not the fundamental reason the United States is unable to do much about its unique problem with deaths from firearms. The roots are in America's history and its governing structure.

Our country was forged on a frontier, in which guns were necessary for food and defense -- and also used against Native Americans. That was after they were used against the British, and that's a main reason our Constitution has a Second Amendment saying "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In those days, there were no automatic weapons, the militia was able-bodied male citizens, and the amendment was a compromise that assumed two things, according to the National Constitution Center: The new federal government would have "almost total legal authority over the army and militia," but should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry." Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, both on 5-4 votes, said the amendment creates a limited individual right to keep and bear arms. In those cases, the court may not have been following the law as much as it was following public opinion; well-organized opposition to any sort of gun control, often appealing to the national heritage of firearms, has left almost half of Americans telling a 2021 Pew Research Center poll that gun laws are "about right" or should be less strict. They have grown more gun-friendly since 2018, with the share saying "less strict" in Gallup polls rising to 11% from 4%. That could reflect a growing belief among some Americans that armed conflict among civilians is becoming more likely.

The paper's stories begin on the back page.

Still, the latest Gallup survey on the issue found that 52% of U.S. adults feel that laws governing the sale of guns should be stricter, with 35% saying they should be kept as they are. A majority or a plurality have been in favor of stricter laws since 2012, the year of the most deadly school shooting, in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Conn.

Why hasn't public opinion in the last decade moved Congress on the issue? The main reason is the Senate, where each state has equal representation, giving lightly populated states with largely rural landscapes disproportionate influence. That was a compromise made even before the Bill of Rights, at the convention that wrote the Constitution, which set the structure in stone by writing, "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

So, if gun laws are to be made stricter, it's not mainly a matter of overcoming "the gun lobby." It's a probably matter of changing opinion in states with large rural populations. States like Texas. And places like Uvalde.

State of the Union speech had much of rural interest, largely implicit; fact-checkers note issues with it and the GOP reply

President Biden's State of the Union address had much of interest to rural Americans, though largely implicit. Here are some highlights, along with some journalistic fact-checking.

Biden's text used "rural" once: "We’re going to provide — provide affordable high-speed Internet for every American — rural, suburban, urban, and tribal communities," but he issued a "fact sheet" about "Historic Investments To Create Opportunity and Build Wealth in Rural America."

He didn't mention his stalled Build Back Better bill by name, but stumped for many elements that would benefit rural areas, perhaps in an effort to appeal to holdout Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. That includes expanding Medicaid and government negotiating of drug prices (as the Department of Veterans Affairs already does, he noted), capping insulin costs, equitable mental-health insurance coverage, and more help for home health and long-term care (and higher nursing-home standards).

Biden demanded more action to combat the opioid epidemic: "Get rid of outdated rules that stop doctors from prescribing treatments."

He emphasized issues of women and children, including universal pre-kindergarten, extending the expanded child tax credit, and cutting the cost of child care in half for most families. "Middle-class and working folks shouldn’t have to pay more than 7% of their income to care for their young children," he said, noting that lack of child care forced women, disproportionately, to leave the workforce during the pandemic. No one earning less than $400,000 would pay extra taxes to fund these programs, he said.

He didn't mention the Big Four meatpackers by name (Cargill, JBS, Tyson Foods and National Beef), but did mention the number, and said lack of competition was hurting family farmers and ranchers. He also called for expanded broadband access in rural areas.

Biden called for more incentives to encourage manufacturing and said the new jobs must pay a living wage. The Daily Yonder points out, "A greater percentage of rural Americans than urban Americans work in manufacturing." Biden suggested that more domestic manufacturing would curb inflation, but that is dubious, The Associated Press said in its fact check.

While he repeatedly calling for unity in the face of a deeply divided nation, Biden raised the issue with perhaps the biggest rural-urban divide, gun control: "You think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?" He said Congress should “repeal the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in 

America that can’t be sued, the only one.” That is false, AP and Politifact said flatly.

Biden also called for securing the Mexican border and fixing the immigration system, which drew a skeptical-looking Sen. Ted Cruz to a standing ovation. Such was rare. Lisa Desjardins of PBS said Republicans weren't clapping even for things they support, like fighting the opioid epidemic.

Politifact noted that Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who gave the Republican response, erred in saying Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris hadn't visited the border; he hasn't, but Harris has.