Case: Pikesville High School
In early 2024, Pikesville High School in Maryland faced significant disruption following a scandal involving its principal, Eric Eiswert. A controversial audio recording surfaced, allegedly featuring Eiswert making racist and antisemitic remarks.
On January 16, a Gmail user with the name TJFOUST9 sent an email to three teachers with the subject line “Pikesville Principal—Disturbing Recording.” The email contained an audio file in which a man’s voice could be heard making offensive remarks about two teachers, derogatory statements about Jewish people, and a claim that Black students couldn’t “test their way out of a paper bag.”
The recording quickly went viral on social media and was picked up by local news outlets, sparking widespread outrage and leading to demands for Eiswert’s dismissal. CNN reported that the principal was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. During this time, Eiswert received numerous threats, including one that stated, “The world would be a better place if you were on the other side of the dirt,” according to a police report.
Investigating the authenticity of the audio recording using DSC principles
Imagine you come across the audio recording mentioned above, and you’re preparing to write an article about a school principal allegedly caught using racial slurs and derogatory language toward students and teachers. Before the story goes public, there are numerous questions that need to be thoroughly addressed. Below, we outline some of these questions along with suggested answers. However, we encourage you to try answering these questions on your own first. Once you’ve done that, you can compare your responses with our assessment of the audio recording as an information source.
Does the audio recording allow us to identify the source of the information?
As mentioned earlier, the audio recording in question began circulating on several social media platforms only after an anonymous user, TJFOUST9, sent the original file to a group of teachers. Despite its widespread distribution, the recording itself does not mention any names or provide direct evidence of the identity of the person speaking. The only clues available are the voice in the recording and the anonymous Gmail account from which the file originated.
Is there a possibility that the source material is completely fabricated, doctored, or altered?
Close listening to the audio recording, even without specialized technology or expertise, reveals that it appears to be a compilation of several conversations. Even an untrained ear can detect that the audio is either heavily edited or pieced together from separate sentences rather than being part of a single, coherent conversation.
This patchwork nature of the recording suggests that it may have been manipulated to create a specific narrative, raising further doubts about its authenticity and the context in which the statements were originally made. Given that the source of the recording has chosen to remain anonymous, combined with clear indications that the audio has been heavily edited, there is substantial reason to suspect that the material may have been doctored. These factors should prompt caution and skepticism.
Can the metadata of the audio recording provide insights into its authenticity?
Digital source materials often include metadata, or “data about data,” unless it has been intentionally removed—an action that may suggest an attempt to conceal information relevant to the material. Metadata includes details such as file size, creation date and time, the computer network where the data was generated, data quality, and more. This meta-information can provide valuable insights into the circumstances surrounding the creation of the material.
In the case of the Pikesville High School audio file, however, the original recording was circulated exclusively among the school’s teachers, making it impossible to access and analyze the original file for its metadata. Without this information, crucial context about the recording’s origins and authenticity remains obscured.
Does the audio recording provide contextual information about the time and location of the recording? Does this context matter at all?
The context in which digital source material was created is crucial for interpretation and evaluation. For example, is the recording a week old or decades old? If the audio is authentic, knowing its age could be vital in assessing the principal’s competence and both personal and professional integrity. Additionally, if such a conversation truly took place, the recording should contain background noise as well as responses from other people. These elements would provide further means to assess the authenticity of the conversation.
However, when listening to the recording in question, it’s evident that it lacks any background noise, and no other voices are heard except for the principal. The absence of these audio cues raises further doubts about the recording’s authenticity, suggesting that it may have been selectively edited or fabricated to present a particular narrative.
Does the audio recording contain enough information to establish connections to other sources?
As mentioned earlier, the audio recording lacks any direct connections to other sources beyond the principal’s voice and the anonymous Gmail account. This is often a strong indication that someone may be attempting to disseminate information out of context with the intent of putting the targeted individual on the defensive.
Regardless of the eventual outcome, this tactic can cause lasting damage to the person’s reputation, keeping them under scrutiny for an extended period. Such actions often aim to undermine credibility and create a lingering shadow of doubt, which can be difficult to dispel even if the allegations are later proven false.
Does the audio recording contain information that could cause an emotional response from the audience? Is the content socially divisive?
Yes, the audio recording touches on sensitive topics, particularly as it includes racial slurs directed at vulnerable groups, specifically Jewish and Black people. Publishing such a recording would almost certainly lead to a scandal with serious repercussions for the individual heard in the audio, especially if that person holds a position of power.
While whistleblowing plays a valuable role in journalism, it is a highly risky practice to share such information without thorough examination and authentication. This is especially true when the content could contribute to further discrimination against marginalized groups. Proper vetting is essential to ensure that the information is accurate and does not inadvertently cause harm.
Before reviewing our evaluation, take a moment to reflect on your own answers to the questions above and make a final assessment of the audio recording allegedly featuring the Pikesville High School principal using discriminatory language toward students. Does this recording raise doubts about its authenticity, and if so, on what grounds? How would you approach using this audio recording in your reporting, and what steps would you take to ensure that the story meets the highest journalistic standards?
Click here to see our assessment based on DSC principles
The Pikesville High School audio recording raises significant questions about its authenticity. The lack of context, noticeable editing, absence of background noise, and the use of an anonymous Gmail account all suggest potential manipulation. To ensure high journalistic standards, the recording should be thoroughly examined by audio experts to verify its integrity.
Additionally, cross-referencing with other sources, interviewing relevant parties, and providing context are crucial steps. Only after these measures are taken should the story be reported, with a clear explanation of the evidence and any doubts about the recording’s authenticity to avoid spreading misinformation.
Source materials, whether they are letters written on paper or audio recordings shared via email, are often created using various technological intermediaries. While these materials might seem like neutral vessels of information, the tendencies and interpretations of their creators can significantly influence the content they convey. Source materials are typically also interconnected with other sources and do not exist in isolation; they are part of a broader context that shapes their meaning.
Later revelations confirmed that the audio recording was entirely AI-generated by a high school teacher who had a conflict with the principal. While proving this would typically require forensic experts, even an untrained ear and a bit of common sense could have detected that something was off with the recording. The unnatural flow and inconsistencies should have raised red flags, suggesting that the audio was not authentic.
The image is generated by SCAM using Midjourney