I'll come to your emojinal rescue

I worked on this series for a story on The Verge that details the way the texting-based therapy app TalkSpace operates. Like many of the new app-based businesses out there promising to "disrupt" the old way of doing things, it's not without its problems. Namely, the fact that the people who sign up for the app and text with the platform's licensed therapists are completely anonymous to those therapists. A setup that becomes problematic when the patient informs his or her therapist of suicidal thoughts, urges to hurt someone else, or any behavior that can put someone in danger.

Not only is it unsafe for the patient (or the person they are threatening to harm), but it's also required by law that the therapist notify law enforcement. Impossible under the current, anonymous arrangement. Aside from this, the article also covers the unfair labor practices the company engages in (similar to other disruptors like Uber), such as treating the therapists as employees, with regard to pay structure and work schedules, while refusing to provide employee benefits like health insurance and social security.

Meanwhile, regulators are looking at the TalkSpace business model in an attempt to figure out just what exactly the app is: a simple texting platform for people and therapists to connect, or something closer to a clinic that directly employs licensed therapists, thus requiring a whole different kind of operation. One that is required to follow the rules that all healthcare outfits are bound by.
Thank you to Michael! 

Ace of Database

Remember that band? They were the bees knees in '93. My sister had their cassette tape. Anyway, here's a quick piece I did for The Chronicle of Higher Education, for an article on the prospect of a nationwide database on all college students:

 The author is largely wary of the advent of such a database, which is understandable. There's a lot of debate about privacy, and the security of our personal information as of late. It's an interesting article to read, and you can find it here. Thank you to Janeen, the AD on this!

What we do is secret

This piece for the Boston Globe's Sunday Op-Ed section was a really quick turnaround. Last Wednesday afternoon/evening, basically. The op-ed is about the Senate meeting that took place out of view of the public, behind closed doors, at night. And something was actually accomplished! The GOP agreed to confirm Obama's appointees for various posts, in exchange for the ability to filibuster. The author suggests that transparency in politics may not be such a good thing:

It's an interesting thought, and I was eager to try my hand at representing the idea visually. Here are the other sketches:

I liked the idea of showing the Capitol blurred, obstructing public view. I also tried using the "off the air" screen over the Capitol, since the meeting took place late at night, off camera- although that may have worked better had this piece been in color. The last sketch shows how the politicians' statements being redacted leads to agreement. The point of the article is that our leaders grandstand and ape for the cameras far too much for any compromise to be achieved. SOAPBOX ALERT: While I do agree that playing to the cameras, and offering sound bites instead of solutions can be extremely frustrating (and this was a meeting about confirming nominees and filibuster rules, not drafting some specific legislation), I personally disagree with the premise. It all seems so backwards nowadays. Private citizens' every electronic communication can be collected, stored and analyzed, with barely any oversight, much less a warrant, and we're expected to allow our elected officials- whom we've hired to work on our behalf- to conduct business in the dark?
Thank you to Greg and Dan for the assignment!