11 Sandy Hook Families Distance from Tim McGraw Benefit Show
The controversy surrounding Tim McGraw’s scheduled benefit concert for Sandy Hook Promise on July 17th at the Infinity Theater in Hartford, Connecticut continues as now 11 of the Sandy Hook families who either had children or other families members killed at the school have come out with a public statement clarifying that they will not be receiving any money from the concert. However, whether this was from a significant point of misunderstanding or just another attempt at politicizing and discrediting the event remains in question.
Tim McGraw announced the Connecticut show as part of his Shotgun Rider tour would be a benefit on April 13th, with 100% of the proceeds going to Sandy Hook Promise a non-profit set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre. This stimulated conservative news site Brietbart to post a story politicizing the tour stop as a “Gun Control Fundraiser,” and causing Billy Currington to back out after a backlash ensued with some fans, including some labeling McGraw and Currington as “un-American,” “socialists,” and calling for a boycott of their music. Subsequently Tim McGraw, and the other show opener Chase Bryant, have reaffirmed their intent to move forward with the benefit.
On Wednesday, April 22nd, the families of children Charlotte Bacon, Josephine Gay, Jesse Lewis, Ana Marquez Greene, James Mattioli. Emilie Parker, Jack Pinto, Jessica Rekos and Avielle Richman, as well as the daughters of Principal Dawn Hochsprung and the family of teacher Victoria Soto all signed a letter stating they had no affiliation with Sandy Hook Promise, and would not be receiving any funds from the benefit.
However some news outlets only ran partial excerpts of the three-paragraph statement, including the Harford Courant and others, leaving out a key clarification from the families that they do not take issue with Sandy Hook Promise, or any perceived gun control provisions they may champion, only that they did not want potential donors believing them money was going to them. “Our decision to publicly address this matter is not related to a position regarding any of the complex issues surrounding our tragedy, as recent news reports have suggested (i.e. the gun debate, mental health, etc.),” the letter states.
Whether a large number of potential donors were being misled that funds were going to families of victims remains in question. The main issue surrounding the event before the letter from the 11 families was if Sandy Hook Promise should be considered a gun control organization as conservative news site Brietbart has stated, or if as Sandy Hook Promise states, the organization is not focused on politics or gun control, but working in the private sector and with communities in the realm of mental health and safety.
Here is the full text from the 11 Sandy Hook families.
We, the undersigned families of loved ones killed in the Sandy Hook School tragedy, wish to publicly state that we are not associated with or supported by the Sandy Hook Promise organization. We make this statement following the recent announcement of a donation of proceeds from Tim McGraw’s July 17th concert in Hartford, CT, and many resulting inquiries as to whether we receive support from this organization.
Our decision to publicly address this matter is not related to a position regarding any of the complex issues surrounding our tragedy, as recent news reports have suggested (i.e. the gun debate, mental health, etc.). We wish only to provide clarification for the many generous donors that believe they are directly supporting the families at the center of this tragedy by contributing to the Sandy Hook Promise origination.
We are profoundly grateful for the charitable intentions and efforts of so many friends, neighbors, and citizens worldwide.
Sandy Hook Promise then responded by saying,
Sandy Hook Promise is an independent, national non-profit organization led by several Sandy Hook family members who lost loved ones in the shooting on December 14, 2012. Our mission is to protect children and prevent gun violence by providing awareness, education and programs in the areas of mental health, mental wellness and gun safety.
The proceeds from this concert do not directly benefit any family or family foundation, including those families who lead Sandy Hook Promise. All proceeds benefit our non-profit 501(c)3 Foundation which funds our protection and prevention programs. These initiatives in turn will help hundreds of thousands of children and familiesacross the country. Though all our materials and fundraising options make this clear, we thank the families that signed the letter to reinforce to their donors that the proceeds benefit Sandy Hook Promise.
Meanwhile country group Little Big Town’s Phillip Sweet recently came out in support of the Sandy Hook Promise benefit. “It is depressing that people have that much time and energy to invest, when they could be doing better things, like educating their child and loving people in the world instead of attacking someone who’s trying to do something good, like Tim McGraw. Why would you want to attack that?”
Tim McGraw has personal ties to the Sandy Hook story. His touring fiddle player Dean Brown is a long-time friend of Mark Barden, whose child was killed in the mass shooting, and who is also one of the founders of Sandy Hook Promise. Though Sandy Hook Promise does include numerous family members of victims of the tragedy, including some of the organization’s full time employees, it does not represent all of the victims. This issue has been a point of discussion surrounding Sandy Hook Promise and their fundraising before.
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 12:29 pm
Please understand due to the political nature of this story, comments will be heavily policed. Please keep comments respectful to all readers and commenters, and on the specific issue discussed in this article. Discussion and dissent is encouraged, but arguments not respectful of other commenters and incessant back and forth on political issues separate from this specific topic will be deleted.
Saving Country Music’s intent with this coverage is to de-politicise the issue, not to stir deep divisions that will not be resolved through this issue specifically. Please respect this intent while commenting.
JC Eldredge
April 23, 2015 @ 12:48 pm
It is a sad day in American journalism when media outlets, especially those who aren’t obviously political or sensationalistic, edit and manipulate stories to create a completely different tone for a statement made by families who have suffered enough grief. Then a country music blog (that enough people won’t read), whose purpose isn’t to normally report on these things, has to clarify and give the whole story. It speaks great volumes to your integrity that you always dig deeper than face value and find out and share the whole truth.
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 12:53 pm
I really appreciate the words JC, but just to clarify, I don’t know for sure if certain publications only posted excerpts of the letter from families for political reasons, but I can say that I have directly witnessed it leading to direct misunderstanding of why these 11 families decided to clarify their involvement with Sandy Hook Promise.
The statement is three short paragraphs, and what benefit a publication gets from only posting an excerpt that does not clarify key points is beyond me.
Sam Jimenez
April 23, 2015 @ 3:27 pm
When you’re in the stirring up shit business, you gotta stir up shit.
Bob Wire
April 23, 2015 @ 2:00 pm
I am not a fan of Tim McGraw’s music, but I admire and respect his fortitude to go through with the benefit. He has no control over how various media outlets will use the concert and its peripheral stories to further their own agenda, and it seems that his desire to benefit the Sandy Hook Promise nonprofit is a human one, not a political one. I’m sure he knows full well that anything seen (or, in the case of Brietbart, reported) as supportive of gun safety will enrage the NRA crowd, which probably makes up a sizable portion of his fan base. It’s a great show of integrity by McGraw.
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 4:00 pm
So far, the NRA has not said anything publicly about this matter. At one point they tweeted out a link to the Brietbart story, but then pulled it down, which may say even more than them posting it in the first place. Everyone is assuming the NRA has a problem with this because everyone is assuming that Sandy Hook Promise is and anti-gun organization, but I don’t think the NRA knows where the truth lies in this matter, and doesn’t want to come out on the wrong side of it based on assumptions. I have been communicating with NRA spokespeople, but they have yet to give me a formal statement. I think the NRA side of this is the most important shoe left to fall.
Liza
April 23, 2015 @ 5:28 pm
Maybe they’re negotiating with McGraw for some commercials next year. 🙂
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 8:16 pm
Actually this issue comes at a time when the NRA is aggressively moving to use country music as a way to reach new members. The NRA just held their big convention in Nashville, and part of it was a big concert with Hank Jr. as the headliner. This could put the NRA in a strange position to oppose a big mainstream country star.
Liza
April 23, 2015 @ 8:38 pm
I wonder how they feel about this during an election cycle. It’s probably not a good time to wake up a good size group who don’t see some legislative measures as a reason to tar them as unAmerican or to evoke the emotion of Newtown. And they have to know that once this concert is over, he’s going to move on. It’s clear he isn’t in this to embroil himself in a cause.
Spoony
April 23, 2015 @ 4:44 pm
What is this “gun safety” you speak of? Do you mean education and training, like the NRA supports, and was founded to promote? Or is it a perversion of the term from gun control supporters who insist that gun control equals “gun safety.”
Sam Jimenez
April 23, 2015 @ 6:53 pm
Yes. He’s referring to what the NRA stood for in the 1800s.
Spoony
April 23, 2015 @ 7:15 pm
Which is exactly what they stand for these days. They seek to keep what’s left our Second Amendment rights, spread the word on safety and responsibility, work on range development, and other good things.
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 8:20 pm
That is why the NRA may not be so quick to come out in opposition to this concert. While Brietbart and other websites have run to the presses calling this a gun control benefit, there’s actually a significant amount of overlap between what Sandy Hook Promise is trying to do, and what the NRA is trying to do.
Say “gun safety” is code for “gun control” all you want. But if that’s the case, I guess the NRA is a gun control organization as well.
Liza
April 23, 2015 @ 7:37 pm
If you look at some of their programs and photos of activities on their Facebook page it seems to be safety and awareness. They have one thing they do at school for mental health called No One Eats Alone – similar to an anti-bullying campaign, but about paying attention to an isolated kid, for example. Different messages in the training for kids than staff, obviously.
Merle Haggard
April 23, 2015 @ 2:07 pm
Question: Instead of Tim McGraw funneling the money through an anti-gun political action committee, Why don’t he just simply give the money raised directly to the surviving families of the Sandy Hook incident?
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 3:54 pm
This was never meant to be a benefit for the Sandy Hook families. If anyone was mislead on that point, it’s because they did not read the very basic, very clear, very accessible information about what Sandy Hook Promise does. I agree that someone could hear “Sandy Hook” and think that maybe the money was going to families, but that is why you should always do your research into charities before giving money. Tim McGraw’s fiddle player is friends with one of the principals of Sandy Hook Promise, and that’s how all of this came about.
Even if you think Sandy Hook Promise is a cover for gun control—and as I’ve stated before some of their activities do lean in that direction—a political action committee is a completely different thing. If they filed as a charity and performed as a political action committee, all the people of Sandy Hook Promise could be in prison right now for breaking all manner of federal tax and campaign finance laws.
Liza
April 23, 2015 @ 4:08 pm
I also think it’s possible the families wanted to clarify they weren’t receiving money personally because they have already received a considerable amount of money. A lot of money was donated following the tragedy and is often the case when large sums are donated after a tragedy, there was criticism as to who got what and how it was distributed. I’m not implying that criticism was related to the families, but to the process.
http://articles.courant.com/2014-06-30/news/hc-sandy-hook-charities-report-20140630_1_newtown-sandy-hook-foundation-sandy-hook-elementary-school-attorney-general
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 4:22 pm
I don’t blame the families at all for coming out and clarifying the issue. If they were getting calls and emails from people wondering where the money was going, this was the best way to get that information out to everyone, and they did it in a manner where they made sure it didn’t look like an attack on Sandy Hook Promise. It was the selective reporting that made the statement a problem.
These people have been through so much, and to have to sit here and relive this tragedy over and over through controversies and conspiracy theories is really unfortunate.
Liza
April 23, 2015 @ 4:48 pm
I agree and it’s the worse part of all of it – the families having to see all of this. As a side note, I think the word ‘distance’ gives to the impression that the families are angry. In the true sense that is what they have done, clarified they aren’t a part of the benefit or organization. But I think most of us think of someone distancing themselves from something as a response to something negative. When I saw the headlines, I was was expecting much worse than the statement conveys.
JC Eldredge
April 23, 2015 @ 7:01 pm
I think you are correct Liza. I read the Courant’s story that is linked above and the comments section is disgusting. Mostly a mix of conspiracy theorists screaming hoax and people bashing the families for looking to “make more money off their dead kids”. It’s sad that people today are so deplorable and nasty that a family that has lived through the most tragic of circumstances has to defend themselves against accusations of profiting from their child’s death, when that isn’t even the case.
CAH
April 23, 2015 @ 2:40 pm
Trig, I sure won’t try to debate you or the rest of the echo chamber on “gun violence”, but I am crushed that you have conceded that Little Big Town is a “country group.”
They sure had me fooled.
oliverb
April 23, 2015 @ 5:10 pm
Here’s my take and this happens all the time. Charities are set up in a communities all the time after a tragedy; whether it be for tornadoes or school shootings. These non-profits usually use the town’s name that is affected. People donate, thinking the money is going to the victims and their families. 9 times out of 10 the charity is set up for a completely different reason. Now I don’t know the true purpose of this Sandy Hook non-profit. Nor do I care. But they seem ambiguous and broad about their mission, I personally would never donate to an organization that sends out mixed messages. But Tim McGraw as an American has the complete freedom to play wherever he wants for whatever organization, but if he didn’t do his due diligence or tries to spin what he is doing this is going to come back and bite him.
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 8:27 pm
The ambiguity of exactly Sandy Hook Promise does is what is leading to a lot of misunderstanding about the organization. To their credit, they have released many clarifying statements and information, and insist they’re non-political and support the 2nd Amendment. But questions of exactly where the money is going and what exactly is their goals are is one of the reasons this is such a big issue. Brietbart and other sites may be trying to sensationalize this issue, but the ambiguity behind Sandy Hook Promise is not helping.
Liza
April 23, 2015 @ 8:43 pm
They have a two-prong organization – contributions to the 501(c)(4) action fund are not tax deductible. That makes me think it’s unlikely that the funds will support legislative activity. Am I missing something?
CAH
April 24, 2015 @ 7:01 am
I dug around, which was difficult given the SHP website, but it appears to me that the proceeds of the concert go to the 501(c)(3) organization (SHP Foundation), which doesn’t engage in politics, and not the 501(c)(4) organization (SHP Action Fund, I think), which is a lobbying organization.
Having 2 orgainizations with exceedingly, and I am sure intentionally, ambiguous names causes confusion.
Also, I didn’t see the FAQ part of the website when I looked at it.
I could have sworn I saw it last week when Trig did his first post on this concert.
I believe that SHP (both organizations) actually referred to the FAQ section of the website in its response to the IRS that I posted last week.
Perhaps I missed it when I looked at it yesterday.
Also, including the name of the school which was the venue of the mass shooting can also imply (or elicit a logical inference) that the victims of the incident (including their families) are the beneficiaries of the concert.
Lastly, if SHP Foundation does what it claims it does with respect to mental health and gun safety, more power to it.
The fact that it has a deceptively similar name with a gun control lobbying organization makes me view it with somewhat of a jaundiced eye.
I have taught gun safety for years.
In fact, it is almost exclusively what I teach when I take newcomers of all ages to the range. I have a saying that if you focus on gun safety, the fun will invariably follow.
I have also worked in the mental health arena as an avocation for decades, working with people with substance abuse issues and with other mental and nervous disorders.
It’s a challenging and humbling area.
Liza
April 24, 2015 @ 7:23 am
I also remember an FAQ section. I looked at several of the charities/foundations set up by family members and they all reference the shooting. One, “Safe and Sound – a Sandy Hook Initiative” (looks very nice, and apolitical) uses the name and says it was started by parents who lost children, not “several” family members as SHP states. They all came from the same place, so it’s not surprising, but upon close scrutiny it’s easy to pick at things.
I can’t imagine how so many charities and foundations that sprung from one incident and are located in the same community will be able to sustain themselves.
oliverb
April 24, 2015 @ 6:11 am
Using Breitbart as a straw man is a cop out. Sure they are right of center, but they are a mainstream news website and their contributors are commonly on the big three cable news stations and that site has in the past broke a lot of big stories that traditional media like the NY Times have cited. This isn’t some conspiracy theorist website.
Secondly, saying you are non-political and in the next breath saying you support the second amendment but want a few reforms is in fact political. Listen I don’t know a lot about this organization, so I’m not going to make a judgment on their motives. The second amendment is a hot button issue. It drives a lot of passionate debates on both sides like immigration and abortion. McGraw has every right to do what he wants, he may just be in the right; but he may also loose a bunch of fans over this. Years ago I had to go to one of his concerts because my girlfriend loved his music. Let me tell you. There were a lot of pro-gun people in that audience. It was also, one of the most physically violent shows I’ve ever been to. Lot of testosterone and beer flowing. We’ll see what happens….
Trigger
April 24, 2015 @ 9:40 am
On Brietbart:
I understand that some of their writers might be considered experts in their field and that’s fine, but I don’t think the writer for the Tim McGraw stories is one of them. AWR Hawkins clearly had an agenda with his original story, and that agenda played out with flying colors. He DID mish mash a quote together from Mark Barden that in no way was fair to attribute to him, and he also said in the original story, and I quote, “the money McGraw and Currington raise will ultimately succeed in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire and carry the guns they need for self-defense.” which is the most assumed, presumptive, and alarmist piece of “journalism” with the purpose of whipping people into a frenzy I think I have ever seen. This is the perfect example of the type of rushing to the extreme brinksmanship that makes this issue so volatile.
If you go to AWR Hawkins’ Twitter page, there’s pictures of guns everywhere. Hey, that’s his prerogative, and he has a right to advocate for whatever he wishes through his writing, and I’d take up arms to defend his right to do so. But clearly he comes with an agenda.
https://twitter.com/awrhawkins
All that said, I think the latest Brietbart story by AWR Hawkins actually did a decent job just simply conveying what happened with these 11 families and the release of their statement. Once again, for reasons that continue to confound me, he did not post the entire statement from the 11 families, but unlike some other news outlets, he DID post the most important sentence, which clarified that the families were not distancing because of the politics surrounding the issue. So in that respect, I actually think Brietbart’s reporting was somewhat better than other news outlets.
This issue goes much beyond Brietbart and AWR Hawkins. I hope that my coverage has helped in whatever small way put everyone on alert that if you are going to mischaracterize people’s words or leave out key sentences in statements, that someone is going to call you on it. I do think Brietbart started this fire, and it would nearly be as big without the original piece. But at the same time, McGraw seems to have slightly miscalculated what he was getting into, and Sandy Hook Promise has not made it easy with the ambiguities about the organization and their goals. In the end though, truth and information should be what is yearned for in a complex situation like this, not voices that simply reaffirm people’s predisposed beliefs and whip people into frenzies.
Liza
April 24, 2015 @ 9:53 am
Hawkins wrote in a tweet “Sadly. McGraw’s support base on this issue is not historically pro-Second Amendment.” Does that look like an agenda?
oliverb
April 24, 2015 @ 1:59 pm
You’ve been fair. On Hawkins though, I read his bio. He has a PHD in Military History and seems to write about the Second Amendment for a lot of different news sites. He probably does have personal bias, but I don’t think he’s going to pick a fight with one of the biggest draws in country music without facts supporting his case.
Strait Country 81
April 23, 2015 @ 5:55 pm
The Sandy Hook Promise group IS anti-gun. Anyone showing support for them, including McGraw is supporting a group that wants ALL guns taken from ALL citizens. The group hides behind the notion that they only want to protect children. That is a crock, pure and simple.
Aaron
April 23, 2015 @ 6:15 pm
How the heck did that comment get through moderation? Offers nothing to the conversation except partisan politics.
Trigger
April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 pm
He can speak his peace. But certainly this type of extreme perspective on this issue from either side is unhelpful.
BwareDWare94
April 23, 2015 @ 7:07 pm
Don’t have kids.
Clint
April 25, 2015 @ 1:34 pm
I think I’m going to have two more just for you, and I’m going to raise them up on Hank Jr.
MOreb
April 24, 2015 @ 11:42 am
If you were talking about Feinstein, I’d sure agree with you- she’s said as much. I’m just not particularly sure which Sandy Hook organizations are legitimate charities working for mental health and to support families, and which are gun-prohibitionist groups claiming to be for ‘gun safety’. At this point in time, I don’t really give two hoots about the whole thing. I’ve never cared for Tim McGraw, and only heard of Chase Bryant in conjunction with SCM’s coverage of the event.
Jen
April 23, 2015 @ 10:45 pm
When this tragedy happened in Newtown, from what I read from several sources, is that this area is a fairly affluent town. That doesn’t mean every family there is affluent. Also, I’m not sure why Little Big Town is bothering to make comments. They have never really made the big leagues financially, as Tim McGraw has. Tim McGraw has nothing to lose as he was at the top of his game 15 years or more ago. When he and Faith were winning many awards and were the golden couple. And it’s possible he was doing the benefit as a favor. I’ve learned a lot about donating to charitable organizations and many are not legitimate. Charity Navigator is one place I do research on how much is spent on marketing, salaries and what actually goes toward those in need. But on small non profits, they aren’t typically included, like Sandy Hook. I will say my eyes have been opened on legitimate charitable organizations. They are few and far between. There very well may be some politics in what Sandy Hook is doing. It’s a sign of the times now.
John Conquest
April 24, 2015 @ 5:40 am
20 children and six adults are shot dead and gun fondlers are shocked that the children’s parents, the adults’ children, their friends and neighbors start to think gun control might be a good idea. As I recall, something like 80% of Americans, including a majority of NRA members thought so too. Far as I can see, mental health checks would disqualify most gun owners.
MOreb
April 24, 2015 @ 11:49 am
“Gun fondlers”? Grow up.
I’d recommend doing some research before making that sort of blanket statement. The gun owner in question, **** *****’s (I do not mention the names of mass and/or spree killers) mother, was legally qualified to own all firearms present. Her son was not, and would likely not have passed a NICS check due to his psychological treatment.
I also wonder if you personally know any gun owners. Most of us demonstrate a lot more stability than you just did.
John Conquest
April 24, 2015 @ 9:10 pm
Grow up? I’m not the one who needs a penis substitute to prove my manhood. If the gun fondlers who make death and rape threats against anyone who even mildly supports gun control demonstrate stability, god help us all. Sorry, man, but you have a lot of people on your side who shouldn’t be allowed to own a pop gun.
Tracy S.
April 24, 2015 @ 9:38 am
I remember reading a review of Tim McGraws Live Like You Were Dying album. I remember this blurb “McGraws version of country is perfect for the suburbs. The suburbs aren’t exactly the city, and it isn’t exactly the country, its something in between.” Never a more accurate descrpiton of McGraw’s country could be found.
Tracy S.
April 24, 2015 @ 10:04 am
Part of the issue is McGraw himself. I was surprised at how many country music fans didn’t know that he and his wife were Democrats. He doesn’t hide it when asked about it, but he usually doesn’t go out of his way to make a point out of it in public, as most of the audience of mainstream country could be called right of center. When he announced he was doing a fundraiser for an organization that some feel who’s ultimate goal would place greater restriction on gun rights, that did cause some heads to snap, much like would be the case if some brave soul from the alternative rock world would do a fundraiser for a Pro LIfe event, or did a fundraiser for an organization that worked to promote a Biblical interpretation of marriage.
Liza
April 24, 2015 @ 10:26 am
I believe the one and only time he publicly made reference to himself as a blue dog democrat was in a 2006 Q&A with Time Magazine (which was probably also the the time President Bush’s ratings were at or near a low point). So it’s not surprising since it was one time and long ago. I doubt anyone can find a quote from Faith. There was a bit of an outcry when they criticized the response and progress on activities following Hurricane Katrina, but it was their home states that were affected, so that didn’t amount to a backlash.
Liza
April 24, 2015 @ 11:03 am
Correction – twice. In 2006 in Time he said “It’s innate in me to be a Democrat–a true Southern populist kind of Democrat,”
The blue dog comment was in People in 2008.
sonas
April 24, 2015 @ 4:35 pm
I am not sure where I stand on this. In light of this sad day in our history, it is good that we have some organization that is set up in response to such a terrible tragedy. However, if there are concerts being performed on behalf of those who lost their loved ones on that day, then unless they have rejected the money, they should be given or offered at least some on the money. What exactly does this organization do. We seem unclear on that. If the families who have lost their loved ones are not benefiting from these donations, they exactly who is benefiting from this? What are they doing with all this money? I do not blame the victims for speaking out on this. My sympathies leans to them. It appears that this organization is capitalizing on the tragedies.