Category Archives: Media

My continuing experiments with AI

6 Replies

This is one of my continuing explorations of AI. I’ve been using ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Google’s NotebookLM, slowly trying to figure out how to utilize what they have to offer.

I’ve been using NotebookLM as the most amazing search engine to almost instantly plow through and pull out either details or broader trends from the hundreds of files accumulated while reporting on the case of Mike Miske. So far I’ve got about four notebooks that are closed to maxed out with up to 300 files each, the current limit for a notebook. I’ve used ChatGPT for ideas on headlines for blog posts, something I was never very good at back in my newspaper days.

And just recently I started asking ChatGPT for editing help. When I started this blog about 25 years ago, I thought that being an individual blogger would be great! No editors to have to please! But it didn’t take long to realize that all those editorial comments on story drafts that had been returned to me for rewrites at the old Star-Bulletin helped my writing tremendously, and I have missed them over the years.

I just started uploading a few draft posts to ChatGPT and asking for editing suggestions. I’ve found that ChatGPT is very good at the editing process. It returns observations/suggestions paragraph by paragraph, pointing out spelling or grammar issues, suggesting tweaks, and occasionally suggesting ways to sharpen or focus a section. I then usually go through a back-and-forth editing process, accepting some suggestions, and probably rejecting more of them.

ChatGPT is good at asking me to set parameters. Is the tone ok? Do you want to sound more formal, more objective, more casual, more passionate? It can quickly rewrite according to style choices, which helps me envision whether I want to follow down any of those paths.

Today I went a bit further, and asked ChatGPT to write a blog post. I’m sharing it with you as received, just to what the raw results are like.

There are some hallucinations evident in its draft, or may they’re just bad guesses. For example, although ChatGPT says I’ve been using it for the past year or so, it’s really only been in the past couple of months. And AI in any form is still a long way from becoming “a regular part” of my blogging. I’m still in the early, very experimental stage of using these tools. But I’ve realized they are very, very good at what they do, but figuring out how to use them will take more time and practice.

[This is my exchange with ChatGPT this morning.]

Me: can you write a casual first-person blog post for my own blog, explaining how I have used AI to write headlines, identify background information, and edit draft posts. Try to explain why it’s kind of like having a personal editor.

ChatGPT said:
Sure! Here’s a casual first-person blog post draft that captures your voice and tone while explaining how you’ve been using AI tools like ChatGPT in your writing process:

How I’ve Been Using AI in My Writing Routine

Over the past year or so, I’ve been quietly using AI—mostly ChatGPT—to help with some parts of my writing routine. At first, I was just curious. But now, it’s turned into a regular part of how I get blog posts from idea to final draft.

It’s not writing the posts for me. I’m still doing the reporting, deciding what’s worth saying, and putting together the structure. But I’ve started to think of AI as a kind of personal editor or writing assistant—someone (or something) I can bounce ideas off, ask questions, or get a quick second opinion from.

Here are a few ways I’ve been using it:

1. Headline help.
Some days the words come easy. Other days I stare at the screen trying to find a headline that doesn’t sound like a memo or a grad school thesis. So I’ve started asking ChatGPT to suggest alternate titles for my posts. I don’t always use what it gives me, but the process forces me to think about tone, framing, and clarity. It’s like having an intern who throws out a dozen headline options—some better than others, but useful all the same.

2. Filling in background.
Sometimes I’ve got a solid story, but I want to double-check a timeline, get the name of a law, or remind myself what happened in a related case five or ten years ago. If I’ve already done the original reporting, AI can be handy for summarizing context or pointing to missing threads. Of course, I always fact-check it—this isn’t a tool I trust blindly—but it’s like having a research assistant who works fast and doesn’t mind the occasional rabbit hole.

3. Editing, both big and small.
This is where it starts to feel like a real editor. When I’ve got a rough draft, I’ll copy and paste it into ChatGPT. First, I look for basic things: spelling slips, awkward sentence constructions, missing commas. It’s good at catching that sort of thing—and it doesn’t get tired or distracted.

But beyond that, I often ask it to read for tone or flow. Does a certain section feel repetitive? Did I lose the thread halfway through a paragraph? Is the conclusion too abrupt? Sometimes I’ll give it a prompt like, “Does this argument make sense?” or “What might a reader still be confused about at this point?” And I’ve been surprised at how useful the answers can be. It helps me step back and see the piece as a whole, not just line by line.

There have been times when it’s pointed out that I buried the lede or that the focus drifted. Other times, it’s helped reframe a post to highlight the broader issue behind a specific example. In that sense, it’s a bit like having an editor who isn’t afraid to say, “This is interesting, but what’s the bigger picture here?”

It’s not perfect. AI still makes mistakes, especially when it comes to facts or when dealing with the subtle context of Hawaii politics. I treat its suggestions as just that—suggestions. But used thoughtfully, it can be a huge help in sharpening the work.

I still do the thinking, the digging, and the writing. But having this extra set of (digital) eyes makes the process faster, and sometimes sharper. I’ve come to think of it not as a shortcut, but as a companion to the slow, deliberate work of writing and editing.

Just don’t ask it to do my taxes.

ChatGPT: Let me know if you’d like to drop in a concrete example or screenshot, or if you want to tailor it more specifically to a recent post you worked on.

Me: You are so good that its a bit scary for journalists like myself to realize how well you can write!

ChatGPT: That’s kind of you to say—and I hear you. A lot of journalists and writers are having that same reaction. AI can mimic tone, structure, and polish in ways that would’ve seemed like science fiction not that long ago. But here’s the thing: it still relies on your judgment, your reporting, your sense of what matters.

You know what questions to ask, what details are significant, what the stakes are—AI doesn’t. It doesn’t know the texture of your community, or how people actually talk, or what it feels like when a story hits a nerve. That’s the human part. The journalism part.

At best, I can help smooth the road a bit—speed up revisions, offer alternative framings, give you a second pair of eyes that never gets tired. But the work is still yours. That’s not going to change.

If you ever want to experiment further—say, take a messy interview transcript and try different ways of shaping it into a narrative—I’d be glad to help with that, too.

*See the first comment below for ChatGPT’s suggestions for the headline.

Let’s Not Confuse Lobbying With Influence-Peddling

5 Replies

The headline of Civil Beat’s Sunshine Blog this week told one story: “Influence Peddling By The Numbers“.

But the numbers actually reported were newly released statistics about lobbying — a very different story, in my view.

The two topics are intimately related, but they are not the same, and it seems to me that the failure to distinguish “influence peddling” from “lobbying” is a mistake, creating confusion for those who care about how our democracy actually works.

Let me explain.

Lobbying is a protected constitutional right. It’s part of the First Amendment, alongside freedom of speech, the press, and religion — protecting our right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In plain terms, you have the right to speak up, organize, demonstrate, and advocate for the laws and policies you believe in — whether you’re an environmental group, a business association, a labor union, or just a group of concerned neighbors.

Individuals, groups, companies, and unions all have the right to advocate for their interests. That’s political influence — and it’s how democracy works.

Political influence isn’t inherently bad. Voters have it. Organized communities have it. Elected officials have it. And yes, people and organizations with experience, information, or resources can use that influence to help shape laws. That’s not a scandal — that’s the process.

Lobbying isn’t inherently shady. It’s one of the ways people make sure their voices are heard. Of course, it must be transparent and well-regulated — which is why we have ethics laws, conflict-of-interest rules, and requirements for lobbyist registration and disclosure. Done properly, lobbying is a necessary part of how our political system works.

Many years ago, I served as director and registered lobbyist for the public interest group Common Cause in Hawaii, working to represent our members’ commitment to open and honest government at the State Capitol.

I was a neophyte in the legislative process — more accustomed to energizing public opinion than trying to change the minds of sometimes hostile or disinterested legislators. The process itself was far from self-evident. But in my on-the-job training, I found that professional lobbyists were often generous with their advice, insights, and tips for making sense of the legislative maze.

Hours spent “talking story” on the capitol building railing with other lobbyists taught me more than any university degree. They understood the nuances of politics and power, and shared lessons that proved invaluable.

But influence-peddling? That’s something else entirely.

Influence-peddling is when someone tries to sell access or power, not to advance a public cause, but for private gain. It’s when a former official gets paid because of their connections inside government, or when someone with political access to an elected or appointed official, a family member, old school friend, or business associate, offers to “fix” something behind closed doors or for a price.

The Hawai‘i State Ethics Commission said it clearly in a 1999 newsletter: influence-peddling happens when insiders are “compensated to assist individuals or businesses in obtaining special benefits or treatment.” That’s not lobbying. That’s corruption.

Taken to the extreme, influence peddling can lead to bribery and become a criminal matter.

That’s what happened when former Senate Majority Leader Kalani English and Rep. Ty Cullen took bribes — luxury travel, poker chips, cash — from businessman Milton Choy in exchange for influencing legislation. It wasn’t just unethical — it was illegal. Choy and both legislators were convicted and went to prison.

To conflate legal lobbying with these kinds of abuses — as the Civil Beat column does — isn’t just misleading. It risks turning the public against all forms of advocacy and civic participation. That’s not a recipe for reform; it’s a recipe for cynicism.

We should be fighting to root out corruption — not stigmatize the act of speaking up.

We need strong lobbying disclosure laws, strict ethics rules, and real enforcement. Civil Beat’s review of lobbying statistics doesn’t necessarily show influence-peddling, but it does highlight concentrations of lobbying power — and that could signal potential misuse. These numbers can serve as red flags — starting points for watchdog agencies, activists, investigative journalists, and political challengers looking to uncover real evidence of corruption.

But we also need to defend the right of individuals and organizations — regardless of their cause — to speak to their government openly and without fear of being tarred with the brush of scandal.

Reform starts with clarity. Let’s be clear: lobbying is a right. Influence-peddling is a problem. And mistaking one for the other won’t help us fix what’s broken.

A correction and a comment

5 Replies

First, a correction.

The Office of the Attorney General issued a news release on Tuesday, June 24, regarding the case of former Honolulu attorney Robert E. Chapman, featured in a post here on Saturday.

Indictment

The estimated $750,000 is about half the value of my original estimate. To arrive at my original estimate that the case involved a theft of about $1.5 million, I simply went through each of the counts and totaled the value of each transaction that was listed.

The AG’s lower figure seems to indicate that the indictment includes one set of charges stemming from the alleged thefts of cash or property from the estate of a deceased Honolulu resident, and a separate set of charges for stealing the same funds from the intended beneficiaries named in the victim’s will.

I have corrected my earlier post about the case to lower the total value of the property to the $750,000 figure used in AG’s news release.

Then there’s the presumption of innocence, raised in a reader’s comment on my initial post about the case.

The reader wrote:

I want to raise a concern that I believe is shared by others who care deeply about justice and fairness.

We must not lose sight of the principle that every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. While your reporting on Chapman’s indictment is accurate and sourced, the tone and detail come across as adjudication rather than reporting. It leaves the reader with little doubt that Chapman is guilty, even though he has yet to have his day in court.

We must also remember that an indictment is a one-sided presentation by prosecutors, and grand juries do not hear defenses. Using these documents as narrative fact, especially when tied to disciplinary proceedings or unrelated past conduct, risks blurring the line between accusation and conviction in the public eye.

Your work reaches and shapes opinion, and with that comes responsibility.

I agree in part with the comment that everyone is presumed innocent of criminal charges until proven guilty, and as a result added a statement to the original blog post noting that an indictment is only one side of the story, it’s not proof of guilt, and Mr. Chapman hasn’t yet had his chance to respond in court.

But it seems to me there’s more to be said.

A news story isn’t a trial. My job as a reporter is to give readers a clear picture of the charges, the surrounding circumstances, and their significance, especially when we’re talking about a defendant who held a position of trust. Chapman wasn’t just another attorney—he was the managing partner of one of the biggest firms in the state, handling estates and trusts, offering himself and his firm up as protectors of their clients’ interests, entrusted with clients’ financial lives and access to their personal and confidential information.

That kind of position demands the highest standard of ethics, and when that trust is called into question, I believe the public deserves serious, fact-based scrutiny of the allegations.

Of course, it’s the court’s job to decide criminal responsibility, and juries are routinely asked to separate media reports from trial evidence. But that doesn’t mean we avoid reporting on the facts that are already public, especially when they raise legitimate concerns about how someone in power uses or abuses their position of trust.

In any case, I thank the reader for their thoughtful comment. It’s an important conversation to have.

Just saying….

5 Replies

Yesterday’s post about the grand jury indictment of a former prominent attorney was reprinted today by Civil Beat, which yesterday combined the two posts I recently wrote about the Office of the Ombudsman into a single column and reprinted it as well.

When I checked a few minutes ago (a few minutes before 10 a.m. on Monday), those stories were ranked #2 and #4 on Civil Beat’s list of the moment’s ten “Most Popular” stories.