Gross Inaccuracies in Examiner.com Article on Outlaw Hall of Fame
On Tuesday, February 11th, writer Jessica Blankenship posted an article on the local-based news blog format known as Examiner.com called Is the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame Legit or a Sham? The article mixed spurious facts with opinion, and presented many gross inaccuracies about the status of the fledgling organization in an attempt to portray it as either taking advantage of artists and fans, or attempting to do so, and accused it of taking advantage of the name of slain country music artist Wayne Mills.
Examiner.com is a format that has very dubious distinctions amongst its internet peers. Examiner does not vet any of its writers, exercises no editorial control over its content, an pays its contributors based on a “pay for page impressions” or Black Box policy that is seen by reputable news outlets as a violation of journalistic standards and incentivizes the sensationalism of content. The site made Wikipedia’s “Spam Blacklist” distinction in 2010 for its spurious handling of news, and search engines such as Google and Yahoo discount examiner.com content in their listings because of the regular appearance of inaccuracies, as well as the site and some of its writers being involved in high-profile plagiarism cases.
The Outlaw Music Hall of Fame was first announced on August 15th of 2013. The organization announced its intent to purchase property in Lynchburg, TN for the Hall, and announced its inaugural inductee class on October 20th during a charity event in Altamont, TN.
Examiner.com writer Jessica Blankenship says she made an attempt to speak to the Hall of Fame head Gary “Sarge” Sargeant before publishing her piece, but no attempt to vet the facts she presents in the article beyond skimming through a few public websites was made. Here are some of the article’s gross inaccuracies:
Outlaw Hall of Fame’s Not-For-Profit Status
In the examiner.com article, the not-for-profit status of the Hall of Fame is called into question.
The Outlaw Music Hall of Fame, Outlaws and Icons, and the Outlaw Music Association have claimed to be a non-profit in interviews and their websites. According to the IRS website, neither the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame, Outlaws and Icons, or the Outlaw Music Association are listed as being recognized as non-profit to be tax exempt. The Tennessee State Government’s website has not recognized either as a non-profit or charitable organization. Guidestar.org website does not have any indication of any of the organizations as a non-profit. The Better Business Bureau of west Tennessee does not recognize any of the names as a business or non-profit charity.
It also calls out later,
the deceit of stating to be a non-profit when they are not.
This information is incorrect.
The Outlaw Music Hall of Fame has registered as a not-for-profit with the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office. It was applied for in August of 2013, and a call to the Tennessee Secretary of Sate by Saving Country Music confirmed this. A separate arm of the organization called “Outlaws & Legends” whose purpose is to be a benefit organization applied for their not-for-profit status in May of 2013.
“The Secretary of State’s office is who we are registered with as a non-profit organization,” says Gary Sargeant. “Outlaws and Legends and Outlaw Music Hall of Fame are separate, and they are both registered in the State of Tennessee as non profit corporations, and a 501c3 has been applied for. When we receive that back from the IRS, then we’ll have those numbers to post up too. It takes 6 to 9 months to get a 501c3 approved. I filed that in July of 2013.”
Also, the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame is not an open business. There’s no reason the organization would be registered with The Better Business Bureau or other such entities as an open, operating business, nor is any organization obligated to register with The Better Business Bureau.
Author Neil Hamilton Is Not a Member of the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame Board of Directors
The examiner.com article states:
Since the death of Wayne Mills, board of director member and writer, Neil Hamilton, posted a rather dark blog on Wayne Mills that pictured a stark contrast of his true character. The blog, which has since been taken down, was filled with conspiracy theories and lies. The credibility of his writings would soon be questioned by music fans as he was proven wrong of several items he posted. Most importantly, he reported that he had spoke to those that were with Mills, only to later say in a second post that he never spoke to those he named. Why would someone throw those under the bus, so to speak, that he considered to be a friend of, including Mills?
it also calls out later the,
lack of credibility of board members.
Once again, this is completely incorrect.
Saving Country Music has confirmed through both Neil Hamilton and Gary Sargeant that Neil Hamilton is not a member of the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame Board of Directors, and has not been a member since December when Hamilton made his controversial blog post about the death of Wayne Mills. In the aftermath of that post, Hamilton tenured his resignation, and the Hall of Fame accepted.
Furthermore, the blog post by Neil Hamilton is and was completely autonomous from the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame. The above examiner.com paragraph seems to imply that the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame had something to do with Hamilton’s blog post, as if he was acting on the Outlaw Hall of Fame’s behalf. A Board of Directors member is not an employee or representative of any organization. It is an advisory position, and Neil Hamilton’s, nor any board member’s actions should reflect on the organization, especially considering that the questionable activity is what stimulated him leaving the position.
Lack of Progress With The Outlaw Hall of Fame
The examiner.com article in numerous places calls out the Hall of Fame for lack of progress.
Even though it has been announced that the ceremonies would take place in April 2014, there has been no word of when or where it will take place…To date, no word has been made as to what the progress of the facility has been. There has been no information available as to when it will open and what particular items will be on display.
As Jessica Blankenship points out herself, the induction ceremony wasn’t even initially scheduled to take place for another 6 weeks to 2 1/2 months. However the organization is being criticized for a lack of progress on events whose dates haven’t passed. Saving Country Music spoke to Gary Sargeant about why there has been no updates on the opening of the Outlaw Hall of Fame, and it has to deal with a very specific matter with the building that was acquired to house the Hall.
Last September we signed a letter of intent for a lease / purchase for the building, and signed and delivered it to the real estate agent. The owners of the property have that property, and adjacent one, and a 3rd piece of property that are tied to a loan to a bank. When presented to the bank, the bank put a hold on the lease we were executing to take possession of the building on November 1st. The bank put a hold on it because they don’t want to lease it, they just want to sell the property because the owners are in arrears with their payments. And it’s been going back and forth ever since, and were working on a deal to try to figure out how to break that piece of property out from the other two. And it’s in the banks, and lawyers, and real estate agent’s hands. So we’re trying to purchase the building separately.
That’s the whole gist behind what’s happening with the building, and it has nothing to do with the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame doing anything wrong. It is a very desirable piece of property that we feel suits our needs best for the long-term viability of the Hall of Fame. But it’s tied up with two other pieces of property, and the legal trappings that go with breaking that out and satisfying all the parties concerned. We’re just trying to work out a deal where everybody’s satisfied so we can take possession of the building. Once we take possession of the building, then we have approximately 90 days worth of work to do to reconfigure the interior space to the way that we want it. As soon as these things that are out of our control are resolved, then we can formulate a schedule and make some announcements.
Inductees Not Acknowledging the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame
The examiner.com article states:
Furthermore, none of the inductees have even acknowledged the Hall of Fame on their websites or social media pages. The last post on Facebook from the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame was November 23, 2013 with news of the passing of Wayne Mills.
Once again, this is incorrect information.
Dallas Moore, Wayne Mills before his passing, and other individuals recognized by the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame acknowledged their distinction when it was announced. There were also some that didn’t, but this is not an obligation, nor is it somehow the responsibility of the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is a fledgling organization attempting to create legitimacy for itself just as any Hall of Fame seeks, and shouldn’t be responsible for the actions of others.
Also, the communication surrounding the Hall of Fame could likely be better, but no organization has an obligation to administrate a Facebook page, nor update it on a regular basis, especially if no updates are available. Not updating a Facebook page for a Hall of Fame that isn’t even open yet is not a sign of a “sham” or impropriety.
Opinions Mixed In With Facts
In the examiner.com article, Jessica Blankenship says,
President Gary Sargeant was featured on Fox News and even spoke at Wayne Mills funeral, promoting the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame any chance he got.
This is an opinion. Wayne Mills was a Guardian Award recipient from the inaugural Outlaw Music Hall of Fame class, and subsequently the Hall of Fame renamed the Guardian Award in Wayne Mills’ memory. It is not out-of-bounds to think the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame would be brought up in the context of Wayne’s death, especially since the two events transpired in a month of each other. “Any chance he got” is a stretch of the truth looking to sensationalize the story.
The examiner.com piece also says,
Hopefully the benefit will truly serve the purpose of raising funds for Mills family and not another marketing ploy to promote the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame.
…yet nowhere is it established that at any other point a benefit was used as a “marketing ploy” for The Hall. The accusation is made by Jessica Blankenship about the Altamont, TN event in October when the inductees were announced, but this opinion is not corroborated by any other information or facts. The Altamont, TN event was reported to have been poorly-attended and poorly-promoted. Part of this could have been the fault of Gary Sargeant being hospitalized after a motorcycle crash a week before the event. Nonethless, poor planning, poor attendance, or poor promotion doesn’t denote either a “ploy” or an attempt to take advantage of anyone.
The examiner.com article concludes with the sentence,
…and deceit of stating to be a non-profit when they are not, one cannot help but think if this is really more of a sham for music fans.
Aside from the incorrect information of the Outlaw Hall of Fame not being a non-profit, saying it is “a sham for music fans” would imply that it was a sham that is benefiting music fans. This type of inexpertness evident throughout the examiner.com article beyond the incorrect facts is what is so disturbing when it is being presented as legitimate news.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
There are many concerns about The Outlaw Music Hall of Fame, and its prospects of becoming a legitimate and functioning institution in the country music landscape. It could be under-manned, and needing more organization, beyond the specific issues of obtaining their brick and mortar location. But that doesn’t mean anything is a “sham” or is unscrupulous, or that anyone is being taken advantage of. The reason these Halls of Fame have difficulties getting off the ground sometimes is because of the lack of fan participation. Many organizations in their infant stages must stumble around a bit to get their feet under them, but many of them grow up to prosper and to be productive entities of the music community.
A few years ago, Saving Country Music reported on the bulldozing of the Musicians Hall of Fame, and the subsequent destruction of many artifacts because the entities supporting the Hall were not as powerful as the ones wanting to move it. These institutions are natural underdogs, and face an uphill battle at establishing themselves to begin with. To have someone publish a smear piece, especially one posted on a site meant to drive up traffic for monetary purposes, is both an affront to the independent music community, and on true, objective journalism.
The Outlaw Music Hall of Fame may not be longed for this world, but if it wasn’t meant to be, it should fail by its own weight, and not misinformation. Instead of lobbing grenades at it because certain individuals don’t like the term “Outlaw” or because there are certain issues with how it is currently being operated, offer your advice, criticism, and counsel. Offer to volunteer, or offer some other material assistance. If there does happen to be some corruption or impropriety—which there doesn’t appear to be here—let that come out when those charges can be corroborated from a legitimate, reliable source, and if possible, handle it “around the campfire” so to speak instead of through the outside press. And if the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame still is not meant to be, then it will be from the will of the people, and not a smear job from some salacious “journalist.”
The Wayne Mills Benefit Concert in Nashville on March 2nd will be at the Limelight in Nashville.
February 13, 2014 @ 6:22 pm
…but facts are such a hassle if you’re being a journalist ALL DAY!
February 13, 2014 @ 7:04 pm
Interesting. So is this a matter of incompetence on the part of this writer or is there an axe to grind here?
Seems like a rather obscure topic to write about on a non niche site.
February 13, 2014 @ 7:32 pm
I really don’t know, and it may not be fair to assume too deeply. I do think there may be some folks who decided they don’t want there to be an Outlaw Music Hall of Fame, and felt this was the best way to bring pressure against it. I have no evidence of that though.
In Jessica Blankenship’s defense, I think she at least had some concern that people were or could be taken advantage of, and that was potentially one of her motivations behind writing this piece. But to say so aggressively that the HOF was misleading people about being a not-for-profit, and other incorrect facts makes whatever her motivations were moot.
The thing is, all examiner . com pages are niche sites. They are sub-domains. That’s part of their bit. I see artists promoting an article someone wrote about them, saying, “Check out my article on examiner. com!” when in truth they are only on a very small, niche sub domain based on a locality with very little traffic, and intrusive pop up ads and video. The whole idea behind “examiner” is that it sounds like a reputable, big news site that people have heard of before. I’m not discounting all the information, or writers that use that format. There are some good ones out there. But there’s not accountability whatsoever, and this instance is a perfect example of why that is dangerous.
February 13, 2014 @ 7:49 pm
Yeah I’ve never been to examiner so I guess I don’t really know how it works. It does point out some of the dangers with amateur journalism and blogging in general though. Whatever her motivations are apparently she didn’t know or want to figure out how the process of getting non profit status works and instead of pinning it down she just made a declarative claim. This is irresponsible when dealing with issues that are important to people and shouldn’t be treated so flippantly.
This is one area where I have found you to be extremely diligent and professional in making sure you have the facts straight (like the Mills case) instead of just spouting off.
It builds a trust with the reader.
February 13, 2014 @ 8:37 pm
What’s their readership (roughly)? Where are the based? I wanted to check out the examiner, but don’t want to contribute to any of there ‘views’ esp. relating to this piece of garbage article.
February 13, 2014 @ 9:14 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examiner.com
February 13, 2014 @ 7:25 pm
I’ll keep my theories to myself, but there was obviously an axe to grind by miss Blankenship.
February 13, 2014 @ 7:28 pm
I agree, this writer did not get all the facts. A good journalist reports “just the facts ma’am”. Instead the writer jumbled the article with opinion and accusations. The writer even ended her piece with a statement how she hasn’t even talked with her lead contact. How do you write a piece on this info without talking to the main source?
However, you said it yourself in the introduction Trigger; the website is well know for its poor journalist practices, and has been blacklisted by major internet companies. I would hope that any person takes info from that site with a grain of salt. Thanks for sharing, but I don’t care what that writer “reports” or “can’t help to think”.
February 13, 2014 @ 8:44 pm
First time ever hearing about Examiner.com. Thanks for giving me the heads up on how they operate. So are the Out Law Hall of Fame at a stand still now? I wasn’t clear on that. If they are going to have a ceremony in the spring and they have not purchased/leased the building as yet, and they will need 90 days= 3mths to fix it to their likings, we can forget about April, right.
February 13, 2014 @ 9:13 pm
I don’t really have an answer for you on that. They may wait to do a ceremony until they get the building open, or they may do it anyway.
Just to be clear, a Hall of Fame is not necessarily a building. There have been numerous Halls of Fame that have existed without specific homes for years. Obviously this is not ideal, but it is not impossible or unprecedented. The Musicians Hall of Fame got bulldozed, and then sat idle for years before recently re-opening. The Country Music Hall of Fame used to be in a much smaller building before moving to its current facility. The Songwriters Hall of Fame just opened a new location at the new Civic Center in Nashville, and The Civic Center construction is what caused the Musicians Hall of Fame to be bulldozed.
February 14, 2014 @ 4:31 am
Good call. I remember during Hurricane Katrina seeing Fats Dominoe’s museum/house was destroyed. So with that said I’d like to formally offer my shitty house in Jacksonville Fl as the temporary home of the Outlaw Country Hall of Fame…Well it’s here if you need it. Just sayin’.
February 14, 2014 @ 4:20 am
Jessica Blankenship probably listens to Eric Paslay’s “Friday Night” on repeat.
February 14, 2014 @ 6:07 am
Thank you for your concern. I would not have published the article without the facts. Here is a little bit followup that details the information questioned by Saving Country Music’s blog. http://kycountrymusic.blogspot.com/2014/02/in-response-outlaw-music-hall-of-fame.html
I do not have an axe to grind with anyone. I simply put the information out there and let folks analyze it for themselves. Thus why links to statements that were made. Unlike some blogs, I post links to where I got my information to back it up. I cite my sources and let the reader make the call themselves.
Contact with the board of directors and organizers were made via email (bounced back multiple times), as well as Facebook. I spoke briefly with Sarge over the phone and we agreed to a phone interview date and time. That date & time came and he never answered his calls, messages, or voice mail.
As far as Examiner.com, rather than relying on Wikipedia articles, which are subject to validation, you could have easily went to Examiner.com’s about page. Here is an idea of the volume of visitors. I have been with them for over 5 years and went through a long process to become a writer for them. My articles have been picked up by national news websites. I’ve been fortunate to interview many new, established, and legendary artists in the industry and attend events. If you check out my other articles, you will see what all I have covered, including the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame.
“Examiner.com launched in April 2008, to provide freelancers across the United States with a platform to share their knowledge and expertise through informative and entertaining content. We have an in-house editorial team that provides guidance and mentorship to the contributors. Our network has grown to over 100,000 contributors, captivating our audience with interesting, entertaining, relevant content on a variety of topics. Examiner.com is a top 100 website, reaching over 37 million unique visitors a month. Examiner.com is wholly owned by The Anschutz Corporation, one of the largest sports and entertainment companies in the world. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Examiner.com is guided by an executive team comprised of veterans of numerous start-ups, established media outlets and online leaders including Gannett, Disney, AOL, Yahoo! among others.”
Thank you for letting people be aware of my column, even though you did not even link to the actual article. If you read further, at the very end it does state, “Please do not reprint in part or in full on other sites without permission.” Saving Country Music, nor any other website never reached out to myself or Examiner for permission to reprint any of this particular article, which is considered plagiarism in the journalism world.
February 14, 2014 @ 10:07 am
If you read the comments below, I actually support you, but the point about plagiarism strikes me as unnecessarily confrontational. Regardless of the copyright, I think it is quite obvious that this is fair use. Your are credited and quoted, although I think it was an unfortunate decision not to link to your article. The above is not a copy of information, but rather commentary on your material. I’m guessing you’re getting increased views even without the link.
As a reader, I’d actually encourage you to work with Trigger instead of fighting to try to get the answers to the questions you posted on your blog.
February 14, 2014 @ 11:43 am
I’m not going to link to an article that sensationalizes content to create traffic to generate revenue, nor do I link to anything that has autoplay popup video as every examiner article does. I will not feed that beast.
February 14, 2014 @ 10:40 am
Jessica,
I will read your secondary post when I have a moment and comment on it in due course. But as for what you have said here:
” Unlike some blogs, I post links to where I got my information to back it up. I cite my sources and let the reader make the call themselves. “
Go ahead and say it. Don’t beat around the bush. “Unlike some blogs?” You mean Saving Country Music, so just say it.
The reason I did not post “links” to my sources is because I included the quotes from the source I used for this story right here. Go ahead, and try to portray Saving Country Music as not linking to sources. I link the shit out of my articles, and all my readers know that. You on the other hand, posted a bunch of links that had nothing to do with the information you were referencing in an attempt to make it look like you had sources, when in truth you had not viable source for certain pieces of information for your story. For example, you linked to Gary’s Facebook page as a “source”. Who gives a shit? It’s his Facebook page. What did he say? Take the quote and put it in your article like I did. Take a screen shot. The ridiculous amount of links you included in your story just lends to the idea that you were putting out opinion in a piece you wanted to present as news. If you had just cued up a blog and given your opinion that the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame was bunk, I’d have no problem with that. But you didn’t. Instead you misrepresented the facts so you could portray it in a negative light.
And the reason I didn’t link to your piece specifically is because I don’t link to examiner . com. It is against Saving Country Music’s Code of Ethics, and I’ll be damned if I let you get any more traffic / revenue off of writing a sensationalized story smearing a non for profit trying to help support music. If folks want to see it for themselves, they can find it on their own. And I have NO obligation to link to anyone.
Also, you said that none of the inductees had recognized their distinctions when this was not true. Where’s the sources for that information?
“Contact with the board of directors and organizers were made via email (bounced back multiple times), as well as Facebook. I spoke briefly with Sarge over the phone and we agreed to a phone interview date and time. That date & time came and he never answered his calls, messages, or voice mail.”
I have no direct knowledge of the circumstances, so in this case, I can’t specifically comment. But what I will say is just because you tried to contact someone, doesn’t give you the right to post inaccurate information. If you could not independently verify if the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame had filed non-profit paperwork or not, then you post “I could not independently verify if the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame has filed non-profit paperwork.” You don’t say “they lied about their non-profit status.”
Also, why didn’t you reach out to me? I’ve been covering the Outlaw Hall of Fame. Maybe I had some information. Did you truly do your due diligence before deciding to post things that could be damaging to a fledgling non profit?
” If you read further, at the very end it does state, “Please do not reprint in part or in full on other sites without permission.” Saving Country Music, nor any other website never reached out to myself or Examiner for permission to reprint any of this particular article, which is considered plagiarism in the journalism world.”
I would LOVE for you to bring up a plagiarism case surrounding this issue. In fact I encourage it. I know what my rights are as far as posting excerpts from a work, what is plagiarism and copyright infringement, and what is not. I’ve been a part of copyright cases before, and I’m in the midst of a copyright case right now.
– – – – – – –
Listen, the simple fact is that you said things in your article that were not true. I refuted those inaccuracies with facts. Your story does not hold water and is an embarrassment to true journalism.
February 14, 2014 @ 9:41 pm
Trigger I would do more research before you blindly defend this. Jessica is spot on with a lot that you are arguing. Please do more research.
February 15, 2014 @ 12:13 am
The amount of people posting under aliases on the internet who feel it is in exercise in either debate or intellectualism to say “do more research” simply because they don’t agree in spirit of what they think an article is about is quite troubling.
And that would be “HOF” for Hall of Fame.
February 14, 2014 @ 2:26 pm
Ahhhh, Whatever.
February 14, 2014 @ 2:42 pm
Jessica, “you could have easily went” is very poor grammar and “Contact with the board of directors and organizers were made via email”, well, that should be “was made”. Your in-house editorial team needs to spend more time with you.
Examiner.com is trash tabloid. You can’t compete with Trigger on any level.
February 14, 2014 @ 6:14 am
I think we need to make a point of contributing to the OHF once they get their tax-free status.
February 14, 2014 @ 7:26 am
Not to be a contrarian, but I think many of her concerns are valid and I think the article is, though perhaps not dispassionate, for the most part fair.
As she points out, there are four websites set up asking for donations. The distinction of being 501c3 or not is HUGE for a nonprofit. Either donations are tax-deductible or they are not. In my opinion soliciting donations while billing yourself as a nonprofit without approved 501c3 status – or a very clear statement that you are not 501c3 – is somewhat irresponsible. It’s still unclear to me if their application for status was approved in TN or not.
If I understand the timeline correctly, Neil Hamilton was a BOD member when he wrote the controversial blog post. Not mentioning that he is no longer on the BOD was perhaps an oversight, though I’m not sure how this could be confirmed without Sargeant’s cooperation for an interview. Though I’m not sure I would, I do think it is fair to use the event to question the credibility of the BOD and HOF.
Regarding the progress of the HOF, the website states “the facility encompasses (*present tense*) more than 5,000 sq ft…” In fact, there is not a facility and the one targeted is tied up in financial issues. Again, if you are soliciting donations while implying that a facility exists, this is a questionable practice.
She rightfully calls them out on offering membership fees for extremely questionable benefits. It is odd that a new institution getting off the ground has not updated their facebook for 3 months. That is not a good sign. Just like it’s fair to criticize music with a mixture of facts and opinions, it’s fair to criticize this HOF. As with music criticism, hopefully the message is heard and it serves as a stone to sharpen the sword.
February 14, 2014 @ 9:39 am
I’ll also point out that the author may feel some responsibility to correct the record in that she reported on the HOF acquiring a facility in August 2013 and included links to donations.
http://www.examiner.com/article/outlaw-music-hall-of-fame-coming-to-tennessee
In fact, despite their press release dated August 15, 2013, by Sargeant’s own quotes above, they didn’t sign a letter of intent until September and they weren’t to take possession of the building until November, which all fell through. If you were burned on reporting the building was acquired, you may rightfully have an axe to grind.
February 14, 2014 @ 10:55 am
Big A,
As I stated above in the article, I myself have many concerns about the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame, including some of the things brought up here, and some of the issues Jessica Blankenship brought up as well. However, everyone has a right to be portrayed fairly in the press, and not have inaccuracies posted about them, saying that they “lied” about their non-profit status.
I am not a tax lawyer so I don’t know specifically about when 501c3’s taken effect, if once they’re approved they are retroactive to when they were applied for, if they are necessary to take donations, or if the state approval is enough. But what I can say is that the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame has done much more to certify their non profit states than a statement saying they “lied” about it implies. This similar stance of portraying the HOF with certitudes—with the lack of acknowledgement from recipients and Neil Hamilton’s status as a board member—are the type of incomplete facts that littered her story.
If she wanted to write an opinion piece of how she thinks the HOF is a sham, hey, that’s her right. Printing inaccuracies in a piece that portrays itself as news is unethical in my opinion.
February 14, 2014 @ 12:05 pm
I think it is clear that it was not exactly a subjective article, but I can’t remember the last time I came across a truly objective article on the web or otherwise. Even the big boys take an editorial position when reporting.
I still don’t see how they were portrayed unfairly, to be honest. In the original article, she runs through each way she tried to independently confirm the nonprofit claim. She later calls it “deceit.” That might be a strong word, but you are given the facts to draw you own conclusion as a reader.
However, there is no doubt that the press release from August 15, 2013 did indeed lie regarding the building. So, there was deceit and even you were a victim of reporting it inaccurately then. I’m not saying this was a malicious lie, but it was yet a lie, and people donated based on this misinformation. I commend her for digging it up and you for getting to the bottom of it.
The Neil Hamilton quote says, “Since the death of Wayne Mills, board of director member…” Neil Hamilton was a BOD member since the death of Wayne Mills. Again, perhaps not the best way to phrase it given the resignation come to light, but not technically inaccurate.
Let me just say one more thing, I think the guys behind the HOF have good intentions. Still, you know what they say about the road to Hell. If you have a good idea, great, I support you. However, once you start taking people’s money, you better have your stuff together or it starts to stink.
February 14, 2014 @ 12:31 pm
we had been working on the building actively since July and worked out details for the LOI in late August. Any delay in acquiring bldg. is being handled.
February 14, 2014 @ 12:51 pm
Big A,
“She later calls it “deceit.” That might be a strong word, but you are given the facts to draw you own conclusion as a reader. “
No, she did not. She did not explain that non-profit had been applied for and granted by the State of Tennessee’s Secretary General’s office, or that the 501c3 had been applied for. And again, I’m not sure if 501c3’s are retroactive to the application date as are most governmental applications because of how long they take to process. She did link to a bunch of websites, but I would not construe those as “facts.”
As for the building issue: First off, this isn’t really anything Jessica even broached in detail. She never made the claim they lied about the building. In fact, she really made no effort to gain any information about the building whatsoever. So to act like this was the crux of her piece to clear up that issue broached in her previous piece I think is mischaracterizing the spirit of her article.
In hindsight, maybe the Hall of Fame should have waited a little longer to make their announcement, or been more secure in their prospects of acquiring the building in a timely manner than they were. But I don’t think that was a “lie”. They had a signed letter of intent for a lease purchase that then got drawn out because the bank wants to sell all three properties together instead of one. If anyone is to blame, it might be a real estate agent who believed a lease purchase was something to pursue.
And as I stated above in a different comment, a Hall of Fame is not a building. Obviously that helps, but many Halls of Fame have existed for years, had induction ceremonies, and been recognized by the public that didn’t have a brick and mortar home.
I’ll say it again. The Outlaw Music Hall of Fame has a long way to go here and a lot of things to resolve. But is it fair to a fledgling institution to mischaracterize facts?
February 16, 2014 @ 4:28 pm
501(c)3 status is retroactive (i.e. if someone contributes after the organization filed for 501(c)3 status, but before it is approved, they can still deduct their contributions).
I would reiterate, however, that there is a huge difference between 501(c)3 status, which allows contributors to deduct contributions, and being a “non profit” just meaning that the organization does not need to pay corporate/income tax. Given that small new organizations like the Outlaw Hall of Fame are not going to make a lot of money regardless, and that non-profit status does not prevent the employees of the organization from making a lot of money; the 501(c)3 status is the only thing that a potential contributor would care about.
I think the Outlaw Hall of Fame would have made the tax status clearer to potential contributors on the website. However, it doesn’t strike me as unethical or intentionally misleading. Especially as they seem to be focusing on attracting 25 dollar donors, who are probably are not very concerned about a write off.
February 16, 2014 @ 4:29 pm
I meant “Should have” not “would have”
February 14, 2014 @ 8:21 am
just want to point out, she’s no known relation to me
February 14, 2014 @ 5:13 pm
Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
February 14, 2014 @ 8:46 am
“…article mixed spurious facts with opinion, and presented many gross inaccuracies…”
“…does not vet any of its writers, exercises no editorial control over its content..”
Hmmm, seems to be going around.
February 14, 2014 @ 9:40 am
So, the Hall is still going to open, yes? This article makes it sound as if the organization is having trouble getting on its feet. Also, speaking of Wayne Mills, where could one get his albums? I’ve only found one on iTunes and Amazon and by the sound of your appraisals he had many more.
February 14, 2014 @ 11:39 am
It is their intent to open. I’m not sure anyone has a crystal ball and can say for sure. As for Wayne’s albums, I’m not sure what to tell you except that he does have another he completed right before his death that hopefully will be released soon.
February 15, 2014 @ 1:00 am
Well, I’ve found two online. The Last Honky Tonk seems to be a digital-only release and Amazon offers a burn on demand album by the name of Under The Influence of Outlaws & Mama. Are there any others that you know of? Searching for them would be a lot easier if I knew the titles.
February 14, 2014 @ 12:15 pm
There is so much I could say, but will keep it brief. Gary Sergeant is a dear friend of mine, and to accuse this man of being anything less than honest and decent is pure slander. This trash piece of “journalism” is just one more example of the disinformation age we now inhabit via the bottomless pit of the internet. I met Gary at a concert over the summer, we became instant friends and brothers, and shared a mutual love and concern for Troy Rector, a fine and brave young man and musician who tragically lost his legs and hands during a coma, and when I spoke with Sarge at this concert he was alive and passionate with exciting ideas about the part he wanted to partake in as far as promoting real country and outlaw music. And merely months later, he has done more than others could dream of in a lifetime. Sarge almost died in a bike wreck, yet two weeks later, with a broken back and two broken legs and a fractured wrist, was standing tall at the Troy Rector benefit, though with a bit of a hobble, seeing that the concert went on. He is the toughest man I have ever known, and it is a grave mistake to underestimate the man, because he is a serious force to reckon with, and though in my opinion he has done more than enough to prove himself, the future shall prove more than any can currently imagine. The fact that the hacks and whores on Music Row are also throwing their slanderous hats in the ring, merely makes me smile, for to force these prostitutes to take time out from their assembly-line manufacturing of “sitting on my tailgate” and “ain’t her bluejeans tight” in order to acknowledge Sarge and what he and the rest of us are doing, is reason enough to believe that this movement is a force to be reckoned with, and is not going away any time soon. As far as the benefits of the organization for those who pay the dues, well, money talks, bullshit walks. There are benefits for those who join. For the price of a couple carton of smokes one can help promote an organization that helps raise money for formidable causes as well as the promotion of underdog artists. Also, the OUTLAW MUSIC ORGANIZATION is involved with booking and touring help for its members, and I personally in a couple weeks am going to be on a four-show tour with ROWDY JOHNSON, KARA CLARK, and DR DANGER (stuntman-daredevil), compliments of the organization, and this was all even before I paid the membership. This is a business of relationships, and what goes round comes round. It’s amazing what a little bit of gratitude and respect can earn someone in this cut-throat business. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and cast stones, and this is what the trolls and vipers do best. I’ll close with this: “Isn’t it the way of the mongrels, to gnaw at the tails of the champions.” —William Shakespeare.
February 14, 2014 @ 1:10 pm
That was brief? Goodness.
I’ve got a number of concerns that I’ve voiced elsewhere. At the end of the day, if this thing is going to honestly do something good for music, it will have my full support.
I’ll say this: my primary concern is that $99 annual fee for musicians to be a member. I’m not sure I’ve seen a very concrete answer as to what that entails. Pete above says there are benefits, then says one of those is to promote the thing (is that a benefit?), the other is booking and that they booked him a 4 day tour before he paid his dues. Did they know Pete intended to pay them? If not, why pay them?
My point being, independent touring bands, mine included, have toured just fine for years. At most, we pay an agent a percentage of what they pull for us, not a flat rate. If booking is the primary emphasis, in my humble opinion it would behoove the individuals to move to a percentage-based commission. I’ll fully admit that I am wary of anything that takes a musician’s money.
Best to all parties.
February 14, 2014 @ 1:47 pm
“My point being, independent touring bands, mine included, have toured just fine for years.”
Justin,
I don’t want to come across as combative or judgmental here whatsoever because I understand that this statement is based off of your specific experience and perspective. But from my perspective, having covered many independent touring bands for many years, and even having been in touring bands myself, this statement made my head feel like it was going to explode. I have never seen a more gross misrepresentation of the realities MOST independent touring bands face than this. From trying to get Jayke Orvis off a frozen mountain pass just a month ago after they had a semi-truck park in the highway in front of them and wrecked their vehicle, to sleeping in a Wal-Mart parking lot as a last resort and getting woken up by police at 3AM, tour support for independent artists is not only a problem, I think you can make the case that it is the biggest problem facing independent music and musicians.
Having said that, some artists shouldn’t be touring, and sometimes the road is the best way for them to realize that.
I did not comment on the $99 band issue in this article because I wanted to focus more on the inaccuracies of the examiner article and not every little specific on the Outlaw organizations business plan. But I will say, if this idea is flawed, then let the market decide that. Claiming that they do not have non profit status when they do and other inaccuracies is not the way to handle that issue.
And let me just also say, if there is some impropriety with the Outlaw Music Hall of Fame, especially if it is effecting artists, I will be the FIRST to call it out. But I will do so with FACTS, and TESTIMONY for artists, not with opinion backed by explanations of lost phone calls, and links to irrelevant websites.
February 14, 2014 @ 2:54 pm
Trigger, you’re absolutely right. I typed that comment, and this one, on my phone, and that can let incomplete statements slip through the crack. The statement should have read something to the effect of “musicians have been getting by without potentially dubious support organizations for years”. Gas costs are higher than ever, the appeal of live shows to the general populace has arguable waned, and so on. If you read the entire post, you’d know my overall point, but I’ll have to get you that that singular statement out of context alludes to a falsehood.
I know all too well the struggles of touring, most of the musicians that post on this site do. I’ve slept in the van several times this year myself, we live and die on merch, etc. Thank you for sharing your struggles as well.
So to reiterate my above point that you somewhat underlined, throwing money at an uncertain startup with the hopes that it is viable to your future as a touring musician is maybe not the best way to spend one’s money. I Networking with musicians currently touring can likely have a better effect without spending a dime.
Best.
February 16, 2014 @ 9:30 am
I know this is besides the point but I would still l love to see a copy of Hamilton’s scathing blog post.