Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

A Matter of Context

I've always been a news junkie.

I was an "Extemper" in high school.  Extemporaneous speaking is a competitive event in which the speaker draws a question about current events and 30 minutes later gives a six minute speech to answer the question.  The questions were detailed--at the Nationals in Salt Lake, I drew a question about the effect of Rhodesian independence on Southern African stability--and with only 30 minutes to prepare, you had to know all the issues in advance. I was well informed, but all of my information came from newspapers as well as Time and US News.  

After college, instead of getting my news out of periodicals I began reading history and biography books.  I was shocked at the extent that I misunderstood of events because they lacked context. 

Journalists will tell you that newspapers lack context because of space limitations.  That's partially true--they can't be expected to provide 2,000 words of back story every time something happens.  But much of the lack of context is either intentional scrubbing, or results from the journalist's ignorance of that context.  

Let me give you a couple examples from today's Republic.  First, you will recall that legislative Republicans have been saying for months that there is a train wreck coming because of teacher layoff notices.  State law says that any teacher who might be laid off has to get a letter by mid April.  However, the current budget is in flux because legislators have no idea how much stimulus money they will be getting.  The current law will result in thousands of false alarm notices and Republicans proposed suspending the law until the budget picture was more clear.  Democrats balked (the bill needed a two thirds vote) so the layoff notices went out and thousands of teachers who won't be laid off received notices anyway. 

Incredibly, the Republic story provides no context

An estimated 5,500 employees at 120 school districts in the state were recently handed pink slips warning them they may not have jobs next school year, an Arizona Republic survey has found.

About 4,000 of those employees are teachers.

Most school districts have issued layoff notices because they still do not have a state budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. They also had to comply with a state law requiring them to tell teachers by April 15 whether their jobs might be cut.

Several factors make the story especially ironic.  First, the story was written by one reporter, but acknowledges 10 contributing reporters--none of whom are from the Republic's capitol team.

 Second.  While the Republic headline was right, the AzCentral headline was flat wrong.  "Ariz schools lay off 5,500" completely misses the point and the article makes that clear.

Finally, since there was no context, the reporters (all 11 of them) couldn't point out the irony that Republicans came to a budget agreement todayand if the notice requirement had been delayed a mere two weeks, this wouldn't have happened.

Without context, the story makes no sense.

It's for the Children.

Here's the second example from today's Republic.  Did you catch the feel good editorial about malaria prevention?

The Nothing But Nets campaign, working with the U.N. Refugee Agency, is aiming to raise enough money by that date to send 275,000 nets to protect Africans living in refugee camps, where the disease threatens an already-weakened population.

I lectured for the World Bank in Tanzania and let me assure you that nets soaked with insecticide are a pretty feeble protection against Malaria.  Mosquitoes are out at night.  Do you go to bed as soon as it's dark?  It only takes one bite to infect you.  Do you get up at night to use the bathroom?

The real solution to Malaria is DDT.  But after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, western countries overreacted to the widespread agricultural use of DDT and banned it.  Since DDT is still the only effective way to prevent Malaria, sub Saharan Africa was left defenseless and 30 million people died as a result.*

Now, 50 years after an effective remedy was found and 30 years after that remedy was banned, we are treated to feel good editorials about Ashton Kuctcher using twitter to raise money to buy nets.  Folks who get all their information from the newspaper might be fooled into thinking that this is an actual solution and will have no understanding that the real solution was banned...and that 30 million people died as a result of that decision. 

The authors of both of these stories could have fixed them with a few sentences, but they either didn't know the context or they chose to leave it out.  Readers who get their news exclusively from the media will have been misled by both stories. 

*I'm looking forward to the comments on this thread.  I've given up hope that the comments will address journalism, I know that they will address DDT, and I'm sure that most of them will follow the predictable lines: 

1. I've submitted a false choice, we can actually ban DDT and still save kids.

Actually, if that was true, why didn't we do it?  We've been trying to find effective alternatives for 30 year and it's that false hope that led to the resurgence.

2. DDT kills birds.  OK.  That's probably true.  But how many kids is a bird worth? 50 kids to one bird?  1,000?  30 million  people have died because DDT was banned.  How much environmental damage are you going to need in order to justify that number?
 

Isn't This Ironic

Congratulations to the Tribune for winning the Pulitzer for local reporting.  Condi Nast has an interesting perspective on the story. 

Think doing Pulitzer Prize-quality work will guarantee you continued employment at a newspaper? Here's proof it won't.

Among the recipients of this year's Pulitzer for local reporting is Paul Giblin, who, together with Ryan Gabrielson, wrote a five-part series in the East Valley Tribune on Sheriff Joe Arpaio's efforts to fight illegal immigration at the expense of other areas of law enforcement.

It's ironic that a paper on life support manages to win the most coveted prize in journalism--written by a reporter who has been laid off.   

It's also interesting to get some feedback on "The Guardian's" business model.  I've certainly never figured out how to make money off the web.  The Guardian seems like the the most promising model.  It only has four or five employees and no production costs.  The reporters are professionals and they aren't hobbyists.  They are there to make money.  I've speculated in the past that the model isn't sustainable.  Here's a hint from the Guardian staff

"It shows you can still do significant work, even in the face of declining resources, if you put your mind to it," said Epler when I reached her at the Guardian. Being a victim of upheaval in the newspaper industry doesn't take away from her joy at winning, she added. "It's almost like I'm glad we're not at the Tribune anymore because we're doing our own thing and it's pretty cool. And even though we're not making any money, journalistically and professionally it's really great and satisfying."

Hmm, Professional satisfaction is wonderful, but it doesn't pay the bills.

The Guardian is probably the best example of the local, professional, web only model.  I'm serious.  The site is well run and professional.  If the Guardian website can't generate enough revenue to support four or five professionals then there's no chance of the larger papers surviving as web only models. 

I've wondered what would happen if the Tribune or Republic went web only.  Could they generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the reporting?  It looks like that answer is no.  The Republic or Tribune will never be as efficient as the Guardian, and it looks like the Guardian isn't as profitable as the founders were hoping. 

I have yet to see a website that can provide general news content and manage to break even. 

Trib's Travails

The Tribune's website is down.  I don't know if it's an indication that they have just gone off line, or it's a technical glitch.  Frankly, it's only a matter of time.  Last week, the Trib dropped it's Saturday edition and laid off an additional 13 people. 

I'm assuming that the latest problem is a technical glitch.  We all know that eventually we will click on the Tribune Website and it will be gone, but I doubt we are there yet. 

Janet Shoots Herself in the Foot.

Janet's emphasis on disgruntled vets as potential domestic terrorists isn't going over well in Washington.

The assessment also said that returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence.

"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," said Boehner, R-Ohio.

Meanwhile, the Shotgun picture has finally gone national.  The picture originally ran in the Capitol Times and I immediately saved a copy of it to use in a post but my Republican friends talked me out of it because it would be too cruel.

My gosh, it looks like she's only qualified to play the banjo.

However, Janet's office seemed to really like the picture and Tedski ran it every time that Janet vetoed a Republican bill, or a Republican was defeated in the legislature.  They viewed it as some sort of macho tough shot.  So the shot shows up in Google images because it's been on a lot of Democratic sites.  Now Drudge has picked it up and 12 million people saw it this morning.  Maybe Janet thinks that's a good thing, but I think the only reasonable caption for the picture is to have Janet saying "Boy, you got a really pretty mouth."

Stop the Bandwagon; I want to Get On.

We've all seen fictional portrayals of the bumbling and hapless politician noisily taking credit for things he didn't do while ignoring his past mistakes.  The juxtaposition of incompetence and grandstanding occurs in real life as well, but it's rarely as nicely packaged or as obvious as in good fiction. 

Then, of course, there's Terry Goddard.

Check out this Arizona Republic story about possible voter fraud in Pima County.

Under the scrutiny of criminal investigators, election workers in Phoenix have spent the past week in a painstaking recount of 120,821 ballots that were cast three years ago for a Pima County transit tax.

Indeed, there are very serious allegations and the transportation election may have been rigged by supporters.  This looks like a matter for the Attorney General and right on cue, we get Terry Goddard.

And, no matter what happens with the recount, state Attorney General Terry Goddard said he is convinced the equipment jeopardizes election integrity.

"These (Premier) systems are very, very bad," Goddard said. "(They) are not state of the art in terms of security. They are not state of the art in terms of transparency."

Wow, that's a very powerful quote on a very important issue.  So what has Goddard done about the issue?  Well, Goddard investigated the case...and then dropped it.

The Attorney General's Office dropped the case in 2007, but the Democratic and Libertarian parties continued private investigations and filed lawsuits for election records...

That's right.  We have serious and credible allegations of voter fraud that could affect a $2 Billion bond issuance and Goddard dropped his investigation.  The only reason we are learning the truth is that private parties sued.

And what about the rest of Goddard's quote. 

"These (Premier) systems are very, very bad," Goddard said. "(They) are not state of the art in terms of security. They are not state of the art in terms of transparency."

"These systems are very, very bad"?  Golly, maybe Goddard should have thought of that before he APPROVED them. 

Arizona's election procedures have to be approved by the Governor as well as the Department of Justice.  Governor Napolitano approved the current procedures based on Terry Goddard's recommendation.

You can click to enlarge the letter, or if you click the link above, you can see that Goddard's approval letter is the third letter in the packet. 

The letter glows in its approval of the enhanced security procedures that resulted from the "Brewer Voting Action Plan."

 “Because of heightened concern about election security, not only within your Office and mine, but also among the general public, in addition to reviewing the updated Manual for compliance with minimum statutory requirements, I examined the steps being taken to tighten election security.  I commend you for incorporating significant additional security measures…

"I commend you..."  Wow, that almost sounds bipartisan. Goddard then goes on to recommend minor improvements such as making sure that counties film both the tabulation equipment and the ballots during the counting process.

Nowhere does Goddard express concern about the machines, or claim that they are "very very bad." 

The only thing more unseemly than grandstanding is incompetent grandstanding.  In this case Goddard  dropped the investigation into the 2006 RTA Election and it had to be continued by a private party.  Then Goddard jumps on board and claims the machines are "very very bad" apparently forgetting that he recently approved their use and recommended to Governor Napolitano and the Department of Justice that they approve the machines as well. 

Gosh, if I didn't know better, I would assume that Goddard is, you know, running for higher office.  

The World Finally Wakes Up to Janet Napolitano

Now that Janet is in the Cabinet, the media is actually going to start paying attention to her actions.  That's going to come as a big shock after a decade of sycophantic coverage by an adoring local press corps.  Meanwhile, better play it safe and make sure that your organization is Homeland Security Approved. (Actually, I don't need to read the article, I read the book.)

Calling the Bluff

Ok, I admit it, this isn't an actual picture of Senate Democratic Minority Leader Jorge Garcia...but it's close.

You will recall that both the House and Senate Democratic caucuses have complained that they are being left out of the budget negotiations and both groups have developed alternative proposals--honest proposals that called for substantial tax increases. 

The Arizona Daily Star--apparently not realizing that their Democratic Friends were bluffing--went so far as to say how great the (House) Democratic proposal was.

Last week, I mentioned that Senator Jonathan Paton had a great idea--put the Senate Democratic Budget on the board and see how many votes it has.  

Responding to criticism that they are not including Democrats in budget negotiations, Senate Republicans are challenging the minority party to put forward a budget bill that can go up for a vote.

After failing to consider that the Republicans might actually call their bluff, the Senate Democrats went into meltdown. 

Their first excuse for not voting on their own budget was that there was no way to vote on their bill because, after all, they couldn't get it out of the Appropriations Committee.  (This is a lame excuse; their proposal can be offered on the floor as an amendment to any budget bill.) 

Nevertheless, Senate Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce removed this excuse by offering to help the Democrats get the bill out of Committee.  When the Democrats refused the help, Pearce and Paton explained the real reason.

Pearce and Paton said they would not vote for the Democratic plan, nor do they think it will pass — in fact, they don't even think all of the Democrats' 12 senators would vote for it.

But that's part of the point.

 

"Let's vote for it," Paton said. "Let's see if the members of this Senate are willing to vote for those tax increases. I think it is a completely legitimate thing for us to be put on the record on all of these different topics."

 

Senate Democrats didn't even bother to "call" they went straight to "fold."

 

Senate Democrats will not introduce a budget proposal for consideration by the full body — a challenge, of sorts, put forth this week by Republicans.

 

The latest excuse is priceless.

 

"After consultation with our trusted advisers, it was decided that the resources required to accomplish this task would be an inefficient exercise," Garcia said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

 

What do you want to bet that the "trusted advisers" are the editorial board of the Star?  Notice the passive voice and the code talk?  "Inefficient?" It's like a two-page amendment that could be sponsored in a few minutes.  What's inefficient about that?   Let me translate the entire sentence for you.  

 

"I called the Star and told the Board that we figured out it would be crazy for all of us to vote for a big tax increase.  Just because we PROPOSED it doesn't mean, you know, we actually SUPPORT it. Damn that Jonathan Paton, I curse the ground he walks on."

 

Now that the Senate Democrats have folded, it's time for the Speaker to put the House Democratic tax increases on the board and see if any of them are willing to vote for it.  But don't hold your breath.  I'm sure we will learn that their "trusted advisers" have deemed such an exercise "inefficient."

 

I'm sure that the hapless Star editorial writers were surprised to learn that the Democrats were just playing games, but they were among the few who were fooled. 

 

I think the Dems would be better off if they stopped playing games and tried to make some real suggestions.  But if they insist on playing games, I recommend that they avoid poker--they just don't have the knack for it.

 

 

 

Now That's Eating Crow

ASU President Michael Crow, realing from the reaction over his decision not to give President Obama an honorary degree, has managed to placate Obama supporters, but he may have made the situation worse.

In recognition of President Obama’s commitment to educational access and to an entire career dedicated to public service, ASU is naming and expanding its most important scholarship program in his honor. Going forward, this program will be called the President Barack Obama Scholars and will offer thousands of students with the greatest financial need the opportunity to go to college.

The scholarship that used to be called "ASU Advantage" is funded with STATE money.  Talk about a tin ear. 

Once Upon a Time...

I love historical fiction.  Guys like Oliver Stone can take actual events and real people and weave a story that is 90% true, but they manage to tweak a few key points and completely change reality.  As long as you know it's fiction, you can sit back and enjoy their tall tale.  Stone's biopic of the Bush Presidency "W" was fun and I enjoyed "JFK" and Platoon as well. 

The newspaper is actually a great source of historical fiction.  In fact, there was a great example in Sunday''s Republic. 

Mary Jo Pitzl wrote the story  about the budget process and it's a hoot.  Don't get me wrong, it's not ALL fiction--for example, the capitol really is at 1700 West Washington--that's why it's called "historical" fiction.  It's based on real characters. 

Here was the laugh-out-loud moment.

The budget process hasn't always been so cloaked in secrecy.

Republican John Wettaw said that during his nearly three decades in the Legislature, the budget was drawn up largely by subcommittees in public hearings.

"It was all out in the open," said Wettaw, who served on appropriations committees in the House and Senate during most of his tenure, including several turns as chairman. And the work was the equivalent of must-see TV: The gallery of the Senate, where the two chambers worked out their differences, was packed, he recalled.

If one of the young reporters had written those lines, I would have attributed it to mere naivete.  But Pitzl covered the legislature during the Wettaw years, so I have to be charitable and call it historical fiction. 

I was a member of the Appropriations Committee when Wettaw was Chairman and I can only assume that John is joking when he makes the laughable claim that "It was all out in the open."

For one thing, the Republicans met in closed caucus--none of this small group, shuttle crap.  We got 33 Republicans in one room with key staff, closed the door posted a couple pages in the hall to keep Howie and Mary Jo away and wrote the budget.  We also color coded the pages so we knew which secret draft we were working on and collected them at the end of caucus so they wouldn't leak out. Wettaw, Dave Carson and Sue Gerard chain smoked right there at the table which is why smoked-filled room may be an expression now, but it was a reality 20 years ago.

Of course, there were still complaints.  Republican caucus members used to complain that the budget wasn't actually crafted in caucus and that even some of the Republican caucus members were kept in the dark. 

That's actually true.  For example, Sue Gerard was the chairman of one of the five member Appropriations Sub Committees.  Wettaw  had a seat on all of the Subcommittees, but didn't attend the meetings.  I was the other Republican and there were two Democrats whom I have now forgotten--they were easy to forget because they didn't matter.  Sue and I wrote the budget.  In fact, we wrote the budget on a Saturday morning at her kitchen table.

Seriously, that's how "transparent" the budget was in the 1990s.  Since Wettaw didn't attend the meetings, Sue and I weren't a quorum, so I went to her house on a Saturday and we wrote our part of the budget.  We then presented it as a done deal to the whole Appropriations Committee and the Appropriations Committee then presented it as a done deal to the 33-member closed caucus.  The Democrats didn't see it until it was in bill form.

Now that's good government. 

Wettaw and Mary Jo Pitzl both know that today's process is completely transparent when compared to the old days, but that doesn't fit into the current narrative.  That's why it's historical fiction--but that's OK, I like fiction,and as long as you don't fall for it either, you can enjoy it too. 

(I get a kick out of all the faux indignation that the press pumps out during "sunshine" week.  Gannett had a big layoff last week and one of my sources at the paper told me that management worked so hard to keep the layoff secret that they resorted to calling employees at home on Sunday night and telling them not to come in the next day.  And for some reason, I've never seen the Republic editorial board comply with the open meeting law, and If I ask the Republic reporters for their email, I don't think I'm going to get a copy.  So much for transparency.)

The Failed Government to our South

Dude, what's up with Tucson?   In the previous post, I mentioned that Tucson officials had made the bone headed move of wasting political capital by sounding off in favor of Tohono O'odham casino that's being built in the middle of Glendale. 

Of course, thanks to the investigative work of the Star's Rob O'Dell, we've been hearing for months that the Rio Nuevo project has become an $100 million boondoggle.*

Now the City Manager shows up to a Council meeting and promptly gets fired.

Tuesday's City Council study session was not over when the final vote rang out, so City Manager Mike Hein, officially relieved of his job, asked to be dismissed.

He left the council chambers for the building's top floor, gathered up some papers and handed them to his deputies.

He was gone within minutes, his door closed in finality, and it remains so.

Then on Saturday morning, we heard of a new development.

Tucson's struggling Rio Nuevo Downtown Redevelopment effort will be out of a job after June 30, city officials said Friday.

So they have fired the City Manager and the Rio Nuevo Director within a matter of days--during the same week in which they sent the bizarre letter in support for the Glendale Casino.

Dude, I've got a solution. Since Rio Nuevo has spent $100 million with very little to show for it, the City Manager is gone, the Rio Nuevo Manager will soon be gone, the project is adrift and Tucson officials are using what little political capital they have in order to support the Tribe's "right" to build a casino in downtown Glendale--let's put the casino in downtown Tucson.  That solves everyone's problems. 

*Tucson Legislators seem intent to save the project, but I think it's increasingly looking like a "Bridge to Nowhere."  I think Rio Nuevo will end up as a poster child for pork gone bad and Republicans and Democrats alike will come to regret their support of the project.  Unfortunately, most of them will only realize their mistake when they see the first of thousands of commercials sponsored by the DCCC or the RNCC linking them to the project and mocking its grandiose plans and minimal accomplishments.