Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

After Extensive Investigation Grant Wood Clears Dennis Burke

From this morning’s Republic:  Woods said Burke has "done an excellent job, and I think he probably welcomes the chance to take a breather."
 
Burke didn’t merely preside over some bureaucratic snafu.  He didn’t just overspend a budget, misuse RICO funds or take a politician to football games.  Burke oversaw a program that purchased and sent 2,000 high powered weapons to Mexican drug cartels and they have used those weapons to kill 150 people so far.
 
But, hey, Grant Woods is confident that Burke has “done an excellent job.”  So he’s got that going for him, which is nice.

The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round.

It's been 10 weeks since I predicted that US Attorney Dennis Burke would be forced to resign for his part in the Fast and Furious scandal.

On June 16th, I wrote that "Burke will be unemployed by year end."

My view is that President Obama and AG Eric Holder will try to contain the damage as far down the chain of command as possible--that means they jettison Burke very quickly. 

Well, you may have read that Burke resigned this morning.

Burke's resignation is only the beginning.  This scandal is so large that it will work it's way up the chain of command until it envelopes AG Eric Holder as well.  If you want to know how big the story it, ask yourself how many people died as a result of Watergate.

Burke deserved to go.  He certainly knew about--and probably approved--the Fast and Furious operation which resulted in scores of deaths...including two US Agents and the brother of a Mexican Attorney General.  Burke then handled the resulting case badly...for example, he opposed Agent Terry's family's motion to become intervenors in the case. 

Let's be clear.  Burke got the position because he was close to Janet Napolitano.  The US Attorney's office works extensively with the Tribes and Burke replaced a more qualified Native American woman who was an expert in Indian Law.  His hiring was political and his firing was for cause. His actions led to the death of scores of innocent people and his handling of the aftermath was short sighted and callous.

Burke is by no means a victim.  Let's hope that he has the class not to try to portray himself as one and let's hope the media has the sensibility not to fall for it if he does.

Post Script:

Speaking of the media, it will be interesting to see how the Republic handles the story.  After all, the Fast and Furious scandal is a local story that has gone national.  The Republic should have been going full Woodward and Bernstein on this thing.  Instead, the paper systematically ignored the story.   I've certainly covered the local angle extensively--and Brahm Resnik has been all over it-- but if you get your news from the Republic, you have no idea what's going on.  All you will see is the surprise resignation of the US Attorney. 

Newspapers used to be the gatekeepers.  What they didn't write, didn't happen. Those days are long gone.  Now the newspapers ignore events, but the public finds out about the events through alternative sources and then eventually the newspaper is unable to maintain the blackout.  The Burke story is a great example of that phenomenon. 

Newspapers lose credibility every time they try to bury a story and it blows up in their face.  Soon they will be gone and the world will be a better place.

Journalism 101: Tricks of the Trade

I like to point out parts of stories in which the reporter tries to manipulate the reader.  It's usually easy to find a trick or two, but last Sunday, the Republic's Michelle Ye Hee Lee wrote a story that provides a full blown clinic on media manipulation. 

Check out this story about secret meetings between the Maricopa County Air Quality Director and the industry folks who are writing regulations behind the scenes.

The department's director, William Wiley, holds private monthly meetings to discuss policy changes with a group he calls the Clean Air Council, composed entirely of local stakeholders such as members of private industry and local cities.

Can you spot the trick?  I call it "Mr. Smith Showers Nude!" 

When you read a breathless article citing secret sources who confirm that Mr. Smith indeed showers in the nude, it sounds really bad.  Of course, if you think about it...everyone showers in the nude.  So let's go back to the paragraph about Bill Wiley...he hosts meetings to discuss policies with stake holders.  Is that a problem?  That's the essence of government.  I meet with government officials all day.  When I was in government, I met with stakeholders all day.  The conference rooms at all levels of government have to be reserved by appointment because they are filled with stakeholders and policy makers all day long.  The reporter has taken something that is common, legal and normal and made it sound evil. 

The second trick is what I call the "Self Debunking story." 

The Wiley group is controversial because the meetings are private, which, of course, implies that they are "secret"...which in turn implies that they generate bad results.   The reporter then gives us a bunch of background on the open meeting law and eventually we find out that the open meeting law doesn't apply to state agencies.  So the meetings are legal.  But here's the real trick...if you read the full story, you will realize that the meetings aren't even private!  The meetings are open to all stakeholders--including cities and the American Lung Association as well as to other employees (whose "exclusion" is the premise of the article.)  In addition to being open, the meetings are formal...they have agendas, regular meeting times and a large list of invitees. 

The entire premise of the story...that an agency Director is having secret, closed door meetings with industry advocates is false and you can tell it's false by simply reading the entire story. 

The next trick is called "hide the source".  The reporter is supposed to have written the story based on complaints by "employees within the agency."  Yet none of these employees are named or quoted and if you read closely, it looks like the origin of the story is actually a two month old press release from State Representative Daniel Patterson.  Here's the key line...

In June, Patterson's group sent a release to news outlets accusing the Air Quality Department of "clubby, closed-door dealing on matters affecting public health and quality of life."

So here's what really happened. Last June, Patterson sent the press release that's quoted above.  The reporter was intrigued by these closed door meetings with industry bad guys and decided to go with it.  She put a lot of time into the story, researched the open meeting law, got a lot of good quotes and then realized...that the meetings are actually open.  D'oh.

By then she had so much time invested in the now debunked story that she couldn't just drop it, so she sexed it up a bit and ran with it anyway.   Here's a great example of sexing it up; notice that the employees aren't "complaining", they are "blowing the whistle".  Whistleblowing is not an expression, it's a legal term that describes a situation in which employees report illegal activities to regulatory or law enforcement officials and in turn receive special statutory protection. 

Her use of the term "blow the whistle" is an effort to create the impression that Mr. Wiley has done something illegal, without actually saying that he has done something illegal.  After all, she can't actually say that he's done something illegal because the rest of her story points out that everything he's done is legal, and in fact, the one thing he's supposed to have done--held closed-door meetings with stakeholders--he hasn't done at all.

The next trick is the one I call "moral equivalence."  Tell me what you think of this quote. 

"Whether it's legal or not doesn't really matter," said Cuillier, chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists' Freedom of Information Committee. "Do we want to protect corporations from feeling uncomfortable, or do we want to err on the side of making sure the public knows what's going on? Personally, I am on the side of the public."

That quote would be pretty funny if it was from a guy picked at random in the automotive section of your local Wal-Mart.  The fact that the quote is from a journalism professor is absurd.  My gosh, this guy actually teaches journalists and he said "Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter."  Do you know why he said that?  Because he actually believes it. Journalists really believe that their opinion on what's right and wrong is the same as the LAW about what's right or wrong.  So it doesn't actually matter if it's illegal, this professor thinks it's wrong, so naturally, that's the same thing. 

Notice of course that his quote--in addition to being quite insane--is completely wrong because the meetings are OPEN. 

Finally let's step back and look at the rank hypocrisy.  On the day this story ran, the Arizona Republic endorsed Wes Gullet for Phoenix Mayor.  Funny, I must have missed the notice for the meeting where that decision was made.  After all, that's a very important decision.  I presume that there were a lot of meetings with stakeholders and candidates.  Shockingly, those meetings were all held BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!  These critical meetings were secret, private affairs in which the public was excluded while the crucial desision makers at the Republic met behind closed doors with candidates and then met privately among themselves to make this crucial decision.  There was no notice, no agenda, no open doors, no minutes, no record, no public access.  Then the editorial was written...anonymously.  So the process may be secret, but at least there's no accountability.

 But you say "Greg, the Republic is a private corporation it doesn't have to comply with the open meeting law.  It doesn't have to follow the Freedom of Information act.  It doesn't have to be transparent and open."

To that I reply. 

"Whether it's legal or not doesn't really matter," "Do we want to protect corporations from feeling uncomfortable, or do we want to err on the side of making sure the public knows what's going on? Personally, I am on the side of the public."

What's Wrong with this Estimate?

Check out this article about First Solar purchasing a piece of property.

First Solar Inc. of Tempe is buying about 635 acres of land owned by Mesa in Pinal County, where the company plans to build an electrical-generating station for Salt River Project.

The purchase price is about $9.8 million, or $15,433 per acre.

What's wrong with the estimate?  The company is buying "about" 635 acres for "$9.8 million."  So how accurate can the final number be? Not very.  But notice the conclusion...the price is $15,433 per acre.  This is obviously wrong because we don't have enough information on the two factors--size and price--to do any more than make a rough calculation of price per acre.  The best the author can do is say the price is "about $15,000 an acre." 

Why does it matter?  Am I just being picky?  It matters because it's a great example of the type of false confidence that policy analysts, politicians and journalists often display. 

Policy makers like to take inputs that are difficult to estimate--popularity of various sports venues, convention center demand, or macro issues like "stimulus" spending and Quantitative Easing-- run them through various "multipliers" and "levelers" then assume some sort of discount rate and come up with the present value of a 20 year stream of revenue projections.  Oftentimes the final "answer" is very specific, yet the inputs are highly speculative.  The media then dutifully report these outputs as fact.  That's why it's instructive that the Republic's Gary Nelson was willing to say that the cost of the First Solar purchase was $15,433 an acre.

Here's a great example of the futility of this type of analysis.  Take a look at this 2003 article about the City of Glendale's great idea for a new sports arena... 

City officials estimate the arena will more than pay for itself and even greater profits will be realized with the Westgate development. The Coyotes will pay at least $20 million rent during their 30-year lease and sales taxes from tickets, concessions and suites are predicted to bring in $43 million. The big money generator is parking, which officials figure will generate more than $130 million in revenue for the city over the life of the Coyotes' contract.

Golly, I bet that $43 million number was comforting--take the numer of hotdogs, pretzles, cokes and beer per game for the next 30 years, factor in inflation and the projected sales tax rate then take the present value and you get a nice number.  Of, course it's actually a nice meaningless number, but it's so comforting because it's so precise. 

Now Westgate is in foreclosure, the team is ready to leave, Glendale is struggling to pay its debt and the $43 million has been shown to be an illusion.

It's too bad that no one in the media looked at the figure skeptically. 

So next time that you read that a big sports event is going to bring $212 million into the Valley, or a new program will create 150,000 jobs.  Take a moment and remind yourself that there's one thing you can definately say about the number.  It's wrong.

What Part of "Shall" don't you Understand?

The media have done a good job confusing the public about the Legislature's responsibility to pay for recall expenses.  Thats why guys like "Bob" use the Espresso Pundit Comments section to allege that I'm actually the one who fudged the language.   Give me a break.  Here's the language from the Constitution:

Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elections in so far as applicable. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer.

That's very clear.  The Legislature SHALL enact statutes to implement this section and those statutes will include the payment of recall expenses. 

So why is there confusion?  Because there's no penalty if the Legislature doesn't do it.  Legislators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution clearly requires the Legislature to pass a law that pays for the recall expenses.  However if they don't do it, there's no penalty.  That's what de facto Democratic Party Spokesman E.J. Montini and the other media enablers call "optional." 

Recall Total

De facto Democratic Party Spokesman E. J. Montini is complaining that taxpayers might have to pay Russell Pearce's recall expenses.  This shouldn't come as a surprise, it's been nearly 30 years since Montini advocated that the legislature refuse to pay for Evan Mecham's recall election expenses--even thought the State Constitution says that the legislature has to pay the recall expenses.

Montini seems to think that tax money shouldn't be spent on politicians.  Well, actually, Montini simply believes that tax money shouldn't be spent on the WRONG KIND of politicians.  Montini was a big supporter of "Clean" elections, so he has a long history of support for giving public money to candidates. However, true to form, Montini changed his mind about Public funding when he realized that Conservatives would actually use the money to get elected. 

Now it doesn't seem like such a good idea...at least not to the de facto spokesman of the Democratic Party.

 

Winding Down...

The Wall Street Journal caused a stir with an article chronicling the decline in newspaper advertising.  It seems that the dramatic drop off in both the quantity and price of ads is not part of the current economic cycle, but is actually permanent....you know, like I've been saying for about 6 years now.  The WSJ article is behind the pay wall, but here's the Politico version.

Among the hardest hit in the most recent quarter was The Washington Post Co.'s flagship newspaper, where print advertising declined 12% to $66.6 million for the quarter. And unlike at many of its peers, the digital business was no help. Ad revenue at the company's online publishing unit, which includes the Post's website and Slate, fell 13% for the quarter.

Notice that web advertising is dropping as well.  Newspapers used to claim that their readers would migrate to the web and that the resulting revenue would save them.  That theory is long dead.  Readers have many more online options, so it's hard to continually increase traffic, but more importantly, advertisers don't value web views as much as print readers, so even if all of a newspaper's readers moved to the newspaper's website, the paper would sustain a 95% drop in revenue. 

You can expect the trend to continue with circulation and ad revenue falling, followed by round after round of cost cutting and eventually leading to a loss of crritical mass and then a rapid collapse.  This is what happened to the Tribune and Citizen and will soon happen to the Star.

Speaking of the Star, Lee Enterprises closed at 62 cents a share yesterday.  Down over 30% in the last month alone.  I think it's unlikely that the Start will exist long enough to cover the 2012 election.

Like I was saying...

I've had a lot of feedback about my College Orientation post.  It seems that there are a lot of folks out there who have realized that a college degree isn't the meal ticket that it used to be...and that a degree that doesn't provide specific skills--history, sociology, journalism, gender studies, political science--probably doesn't provided enough income to even repay the loans (not to mention the time) that it took to get the degree. 

For those of you who are still skeptics, the Republic has noticed the trend as well.  Check out the lead article in Sunday's paper.

Parents used to bank on one of the great promises of American middle-class life: Send your children to college, and they'll end up with a higher standard of living than you had.  Those heading to college as adults saw the degree as another rung up the ladder of opportunity. But now some are wondering: Is a college degree worth the effort and expense?

It's nice that the Republic is on board.  Of course, I've been raising the issue for years now.  Here's a snippet from a 2007 Espresso Pundit post.

Degrees that once cost $10,000 made sense for an 18 year old who wanted to avoid truck driving school, but Psychology, History, Religious Studies, Political Science, English Lit, and Journalism to name a few have become uneconomic at $30,000. 

It makes no sense to incur $30,000 to $50,000 in debt for a degree that has little or no economic value.   Sure, a liberal arts education is a great background if you want to attend law school, but ASU accepts 160 of the 3,500 who apply.  That's a pretty big gamble if your undergraduate degree is in Film Studies.  Do you know how many Cappuccinos you have to make to pay off a $30,000 debt? So students on the margin have made the rational decision to forgo college.

That post is four years old, which means that the students and parents who are featured in today's Republic article were chosing majors at about the time the post was published--if only they had been Espresso Pundit fans.

Meanwhile, it's great that the Republic is finally looking skeptically at higher education...now if we can get them to cover the Fast and Furious scandal.

Avoiding Clichés Like the Plague

Republic columnist Linda Valdez uses her quick hit to chastise the common folks for using platitudes, yet she is oblivious that her solutions--a call for "Jobs" and "Opportunity"--are themselves platitudes and what's worse is that she manages to fall back on three tired cliches into a few short sentences.

These are not happy days in the Land of Opportunity. With unemployment too high and the politicians too self-interested, it seems like we are about to enter another election cycle of frustration and anger. Instead of focusing on a partisan game of "throw the bums out," maybe Americans should focus on a nonpartisan effort to hold the feet of the current bums to the fire. It's time for jobs, not platitudes.

Let's leave the awful writing aside for a moment and focus on the quick hit itself; the statement makes absolutely no sense.  How can you hold a Congressman's feet to the fire without threatening to throw the bums out?  The only way that constitutents can put pressure on Congressmen is through elections.  So how do you focus on one and not the other?

It's easy to say, well, that's just Linda, consider the source.  However, Linda occasionally gets to write anonymous editorials that speak for the entire paper.  Those are often as disjointed and inchoherant as this one and occassionally, the editorials are completely wrong--like her SB 1070 analysis--and cause a firestorm.

The trade off with the main stream media used to be that what they lacked in technical education, they made up with solid analytical skills and good writing.  So what does Linda provide to readers?

This Says It All

Here's a nice juxtaposition from yesterday's Republic....I guess three years into things the original ideas aren't working out so well.