With AI panic in the fall air and reading proficiency declining, let’s try a morning experiment! Many of you trust Grok more than the news media. Fair enough. Test your knowledge against your favorite chatbot and compare notes. Answer each question yourself first. Here we go: Q1: How do professional journalists actually find things out? Q2: In Massachusetts, is it against the law for a journalist to approach a discharged juror and request an interview even if the judge has temporarily impounded the official jury list? What does impoundment actually prohibit? Q3: Does the Massachusetts Confidential Juror Questionnaire ask whether you’ve been arrested, charged with a crime, served with a court order, sued or filed a lawsuit? Does it require you to explain any “yes” answers? Q4: If the prosecution and defense had known that a prospective murder juror was subject to an active restraining order and had been able to question him about it, how likely is it that neither side would have challenged him? Q5: If journalists learned that a juror in a Massachusetts murder trial had an active restraining order against him, pending civil litigation and a dismissed domestic-assault charge, would that be newsworthy and in the public interest…especially if it raised questions about the jury-selection process? Q6: Is it accurate to call the reporting “doxxing” when the article withholds the juror’s name, race, age, hometown and residence and does not publish the impounded jury list? Q7: Are opinion writers, commentators, columnists journalists? How are they different from reporters? Now tell us: How do your answers compare with your AI program’s? Remember: AI doesn’t conduct interviews, knock on doors or uncover court records. As of today, it doesn’t have a body. Its answers are built from information human beings have already gathered and published.

Signing off social media for vacation! And if you're feeling compelled to comment "Who cares?" …obvi you do. Enjoy! PS: For the conspiracy crowd — 11 years at NBC10 Boston, last vacation this year was in March. You do the math.

I joined Jim & Margery Friday on @BosPublicRadio to discuss the Lindsay Clancy trial, and Karen Read’s commercial appearance. Listen here: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…

. @MattPrichardTV & I enjoyed our @IssueNBCBoston talk with @mikeminoguema I think you will too. Watch here: piped.video/KAQQp5lxGKs?is=b9JE…

Is that President Trump’s battle over the Kennedy Center because he’s a frustrated theater kid? Watch: nbcboston.app.link/zBLq8mTSy…

I have yet to see any evidence that I broke any laws, named or identified a juror without their consent. Zero. Because it did not happen.

Check Would you still hit “send” if your kids could read it? tiktok.com/t/ZTUvBNxWb/

NEW DETAILS: Judge rules statements made by Sandra Birchmore -- including communications from her cellphone, laptop, social media and journal entries -- can be used in the upcoming murder trial of ex-Stoughton police detective Matthew Farwell. on.nbcboston.com/dId5yKi

With just over two weeks until the start of the Matthew Farwell trial, a final pretrial hearing is scheduled to be held this afternoon. on.nbcboston.com/77y8GtI

Peter Max, whose colorful, psychedelic pop art expressed the optimism of the “flower power” movement of the 1960s and graced everything from postage stamps to a cruise ship, has died at 88, his son said in a written statement Wednesday. on.nbcboston.com/hrywmo9

There’s a lot going on, but what’s happening on the AI front deserves your attention.

To better understand what happens next in the Lindsay Clancy case, NBC10 Boston spoke with retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine. on.nbcboston.com/h9tmatr

Hey Bill…no I’m not.

Not a survey question but worth knowing: Posting anonymously offers less cover than people assume. Anonymity protects criticism… but not false accusations that someone broke the law. The more you know!

Second survey question. If the allegations that I doxxed a juror, named a juror, or broke the law are false, and they are, then let's talk damages. A journalist's whole trade is credibility. Falsely branding one as a lawbreaker hits the reputation, the profession, and the paycheck all at once. So: do you think I've suffered any damages from the false allegations?

Quick survey! Cite the exact words — mine, Sue O'Connell's — where I exposed a sitting juror, broke an impoundment order, or named a former juror without consent, or broke a law. My post or my broadcast. Not a share. Not a repost. My words, written or spoken. I'll wait.

Hello friends, and everyone else, I’m sorry I haven’t been as responsive as I would like on X. I’m have two family members dealing with serious health issues, requiring both visits to the ER and urgent appointments. I’m sure all of your criticisms will hold until I’m able to reengage.

Judge Sullivan’s order extending the confidentiality of Clancy seated and unseated jurors is well founded and demonstrates the court’s legitimate concerns regarding threats to the Clancy jurors. Let me be unequivocal: Threats against jurors, judges, attorneys, court personnel, or anyone involved in the administration of justice are dangerous, appalling, and wholly unacceptable. As a judge presiding over highly contested and volatile DCF cases at times, I faced threats against both me and my family. I also witnessed the fear and danger confronting social workers simply for performing their public duties. No one should be subjected to intimidation or fear of violence because of their role in our justice system. It’s despicable. Jurors are private citizens performing one of democracy’s most essential, and often most difficult, civic duties. Identifying them without their consent, secretly recording them, threatening them, or targeting their families is not advocacy, and it comes with consequences. It is intimidation, and it strikes directly at the integrity and independence of the jury system. An impoundment order prevents the court, court personnel, the Office of Jury Commissioner, the lawyers and parties subject to the order, and their agents from releasing the protected records. It does not , however, ordinarily bind an independent news organization that lawfully obtains truthful information from another source like court documents in unrelated cases. Under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the government ordinarily cannot punish the press for accurately reporting information contained in official public records. In that case the media published the name of a rape victim. The US Supreme Court ruled that: “Once true information is disclosed in public court documents open to public inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it.” Still, even when a news organization lawfully possesses a juror’s name and has a constitutional right to publish it, responsible journalism and editorial discretion should prevail, especially when the safety of jurors, court staff, the judge, and lawyers might be compromised. Whatever “side” people are on in the Clancy case, everyone should condemn outright, threats and intimidation against those connected to this case. Judge Sullivan thankfully sent the right message.

Some immigrants were confined in outdoor cages for more than an hour at a time, according to a new report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general. on.nbcboston.com/kcuQMSG

.@MattPrichardTV asks Gov. Maura Healey about the aid she sent Haverhill clamdiggers after this summer's sewage spill and asks her November challenger, Mike Minogue what he would do. I weigh in on what the relief checks can and can't fix, and the politics underneath. nbcboston.com/news/local/mas…

Good morning @JohnDePetroshow. I expected one juror and when I arrived there were three. Because we expected just one, I had only one photographer and two cameras: one hand-operated for isolated shots of each person answering, and one stationary on the group. So yes, I directed traffic: wait, go, start from the top, you first. That's what happens when three real people, not media pros, talk over each other, one photographer has to move between them. This interview was going to run as news segments, social clips, and in full, so I had to keep that in mind. None of this is unusual. Technical hiccups and shooting conditions routinely mean reading-asking a question. Sometimes people sneeze, or a bug lands on them. The sun (actually, the earth) was moving on us the whole time, and I was concerned we’d have to stop down to adjust the lighting. I managed the timing but I never changed a word of the content. If the subject restated an answer you can see it right there on the complete interview. If you’d like to come with me on my next interview shoot let me know!