Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Another Big Local Story Missed...and Wrong.

Every time that I write about the demise of newspapers, I get a bunch of commenters asking what we will do when the newspaper is gone.  They used to ask where we will get accurate information, but I've spent so much time showing that the stuff you get in the newspaper is carefully scripted, agenda based and inaccurate, that most of the comments now ask what will happen to all the reporters, editors, delivery personnel etc.  My answer is that most of them will find more productive jobs; some of them, of course--Linda Valdez, EJ Montini--will be unemployable, but they have had a good run making six figures and producing nothing, so it's hard to feel too bad.

But I digress.  Some folks still mention the old "where will we get accurate news" canard, so I thought it would be a good time to focus on a story that the Republic is currently botching.

You may be aware that the Tohono O'oham tribe has purchased land in Glendale and wants to build a full blown casino on it.  This is a major national story but the Republic doesn't realize it so the story is being handled out of the west side zone section of the paper. 

Indian Gaming is complex and much of the law is in flux.  ASU Law school has a separate degree program in Indian Law and a course in Indian Gaming.  It's a multi-billion dollar industry and the Glendale case is about to blow it wide open.  Part of the compromise in the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act was that tribes wouldn't build casinos in urban areas. That promise was also explicitly stated when the Arizona tribes asked voters to approve the gaming contracts in 2002. 

Now the Tohono O'dham want to overturn compromises in IGRA as well as the compacts and build a casino on land that's nowhere near their reservation...and is indeed in the middle of a city.  This case will be studied for years and if the T.O. are successful, tribes around the country will follow suit.  States around the country will then respond by either opening up gaming for everyone...which would ultimately destroy Indian Gaming, or by demanding that Congress repeal IGRA.  It's a high stakes gambit and if successful will have repercussions all over the country.  And the Republic coverage is being phoned in from the West Valley zone. The Republic has largely ignored the legal ramifications in favor of the economic development perspective...and the economic development perspective is clear wrong.

If you want to see an example of how weak the coverage has been, check out this story about the fiscal impact of the casino. The story says that the casino will have a 150,000 feet gaming area and a 600 room hotel.  The economic impact will be:

The study estimates that the project would bring 6,000 construction jobs to the area during the two-year building phase and employ 3,200 people when open, sometime in 2012.

Then the tribe decided to scale the casino way back. The reduced the gaming floor by 2/3rds to 55,000 feet and cut the rooms from 600 to 400.  The article that announced this scaling back also contained an economic development impact.  So if the first casino was going to employ 6,000 people during construction and employ 3,200 when open...then how many people would be employed in casino one thrid the size?

A tribal-commissioned study estimates the project would create 6,000 construction jobs and more than 3,000 permanent jobs.

Golly, almost exactly the same.  That's because the reporter continues to quote a tribal study that the newspaper hasn't actually seen. 

Is that journalism?  Is that the accuracy that everyone tells me will be lacking when the papers are gone?

It's great that Dennis Wagner managed to write a multi-thousand word summary of Fast and Furious six months after I broke the story locally...but that's not why we have newspapers. 

So how about a multi-thousand word story that really looks into the nationwide implication of the proposed Casino?  Or if thousands of words are too much to offer, how about an in-depth analysis of the project and the legal cases that accompany it...instead of the current stories that simply reprint tribal press releases?

Now that would be journalism.  

MSM Finally Comes Clean on Gun Myth

Last Sunday was an extraordinary day.  Not only did the Republic write a full blown fast and furious story in which the paper admitted that the "90% Mexican Gun Myth" was false, but the Star also had a story devoted exclusively to exposing the myth. 

I'm sure that you have heard the tall tale..."90% of the illegal guns that are in Mexico originated in the US."  The statistic is absurd, but fits the narrative that we need more gun control in the United States.  I about blew a gasket when I was on Square Off and Chris Herstam quoted the myth--naturally, he used it as an excuse to reinstitute the "assault" weapons ban. 

I wrote about the myth here, so those of you who are regular EP readers have long known that the statistic is false.  I was on Square Off a few weeks later and John Laredo quoted the same false statistic.  I guess he's not a regular reader.

It's great to see the mainstream media finally start correcting some of their errors.  Of course, they wouldn't do it if the blogs didn't hold then accountable.

Malice or Incompetence?

The Republic's Dennis Wagner attempted a comprehensive summary of Fast and Furious last Sunday.  That's a pretty tough job. There's enough material out there to fill a few books and Republic readers have never heard of most of it.

You will recall that the Republic systematically ignored Fast and Furious for months.  The story appeared on national blogs earlier this year and by mid May, the national media started to take notice. On May 19th  I was the first news source that pointed out the local angle to what was then becoming a major story...at least it was a major story in the Blogosphere. The mainstream media spent the year playing catch up.  The Republic didn't even bother with that.

After I wrote about the story, the Republic waited four months to write a Fast and Furious story--this despite the fact that the guns were purchased in Glendale, the operation was run out of the Phoenix ATF office and Officer Terry was killed in Arizona. 

Wagner quoted a reference to this quote.'Don't attribute malice to incompetence,'

Malice or incompetence, that's a question I often ask about the Republic.  I generally conclude malice.  The Republic knew about the Fast and Furious story but the story reflected badly on the Obama administration as well as Napolitano protege Dennis Burke.  The Republic chose to ignore the story and hope that it went away.  During the time that they were ignoring the story, I used it as an example of how your news is carefully scripted. 

On June 10th, I predicted that Dennis Burke would be fired for his role in Fast and Furious.  He was forced out on August 30th.  Yet the Republic didn't write its first full Fast and Furious story in late September.

Here's a post script that I wrote after the Burke firing.  It's even more true now than it was then.

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.

Textbook Case of Double Standard

One of the ways that the media demonstrate bias is by holding conservatives to higher standards than liberal.  Let's leave aside for a moment obvious examples such as the treatment given Herman Cain verses, say, Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton.  Here's a more mundane example.   Here's an article about the newest release of climate emails.  Notice how this paragraph describes the previous release: 

A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests.

"Minor points such as failing to...respond properly to freedom of information requests."?   Let's set aside the fact that failing to properly respond to FOI requests is illegal and focus on the Times' treatment of it.  When did the Times start considering failure to respond to FOI requests "minor"?  If Grover Norquist worked at a government agency and failed to respond to FOI requests, would that be minor?

The local media had the same double standard regarding the Independent Redistricting Commission.  Colleen Mathis admitted calling other members of the Commission in order to build consensus and the Commission deliberated for hours behind closed doors, yet the local reporters are tripping all over themselves to excuse these violations.

The next time you read a breathless story about a Republican official violating the open meeting law, remember that the media consider these violations to be minor and really not much of a problem.

Report Vindicates McCain

The media created a firestorm last summer when after touring fire damaged areas in Arizona,  John McCain said;

"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally,"

I say "the media' created the firestorm because McCain's statement is obviously true.  Is it not obvious that "some" of these fires have been caused by illegal border crossers?  In fact, there is plenty of evidence that illegal border crossers use camp fires for signalling, warmth and cooking and that these fires are often left unattended and cause wildfires. 

So McCain's statement is obviously true and yet the media made a big story out of it.  Now the GAO has issued a report and said that "some" is actually about 40%. 

Illegal border crossers were likely responsible for nearly 40 percent of wildfires on federal land in Southern Arizona - at least those where the cause was investigated - according to a new report.

I'm assuming that the stories of his vindication will be as widely disseminated as the initial story...hah, I slay me.

 

All the News that's Fit to Botch

I'm continuing my series on media inaccuracy and there is no better example than today's New York Times editorial criticizing Governor Brewer.   Frankly, I can't blame the NYT; the editorial simply restates points that have been botched by the local media. 

The editorial mischaracterizes the Courts ruling, ignores Brewer's reasons for removing Mathis and claims that redistricting prior to 2000 was more gerrymandered than it is now.  All of these points are simply false.  However, all of them have been made by local media in the last few weeks.  Here's the editorial.

The Arizona Supreme Court has dealt a stinging defeat to Gov. Jan Brewer’s attempt to favor Republican lawmakers by derailing the state’s independent redistricting commission. The court ordered the reinstatement of the commission’s chairwoman, Colleen Mathis, finding no grounds for the charge of “gross misconduct” leveled by Governor Brewer when she engineered Ms. Mathis’s removal in a party-line State Senate vote this month.

The court decision was a ringing defense of state voters, who approved creation of the independent commission in 2000 after decades of gerrymandering. Governor Brewer’s real agenda was transparent as she tried to remove the commission’s two Democratic members as well, but fell short in the Senate vote.

Governor Brewer contends that the work of the five-member commission, which includes two Republicans, has been biased in favor of Democrats. The court defended the job being done by Ms. Mathis, a politically independent civic volunteer.

The brazenness of Ms. Brewer’s overreach was clear in the court hearing. Her lawyer contended that the governor, not the courts, was the sole arbiter for removing commission members, and under any grounds she pleased — even disapproval of the chairwoman’s dress and haircut, if it came to that.

The governor risks further embarrassment if she plows ahead with new challenges to the commission’s work, as she is said to be considering. She should accept the court ruling so the commission can do its work and draw maps to favor the people more than the politicians.

Actually, the answer is clear.

The Governor has called for the Supreme Court to clarify its ruling reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Board of the IRC.  The media have jumped to the conclusion that the ruling is substantive and that court has ruled that Governor Brewer exceeded her authority.  Randy Parraz today demanded that Brewer publicly apologize---I hope Jerry Lewis is beginning to understand what kind of monster he created.

But back to the ruling.  As soon a the ruling came out, I pointed out that the wording was odd and that the court had said that the "letter" didn't demonstrate substantial neglect of duty etc.  My point was that it appeared that the Court's complaint was procedural. 

Now that the court has allowed a couple days to pass and provided no additional information, it's clear that I was right. 

So here's what the brief statement followed by the silence means:  the court believes it has answered the question.  That can only mean that the opinion is unanimous and procedural.  Think about it.  If there had  been a dissent, or if the court had rejected Brewer's actions on the merits, then the court could not leave everyone hanging in a lurch. 

I believe that the Court is well intentioned and that their ultimate opinion will be well reasoned.  I also believe that the court wants to give the Governor the information she needs and I believe that the members of the Court are exceptionally bright.  So the ruling was no accident.  It means exactly what it says.  The letter didn't demonstrate substantial neglect...etc. 

This mean that the rulling is actually a victory for Brewer.  The media will never admit it, but they botched it.  It's the Tet Offensive all over again.  The media declares that a success is actually a failure and the party that actually won, never manages to correct the narrative.

The Court has ruled that Governor Brewer did not exceed her authority.  They have deferred to her and to the Senators to determine what constitutes substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct. However, they do not believe that Ms. Mathis received adequate notice on the specific violations and have reinstated her subject to the Governor fixing the procedural shortfalls. 

Brewer's authority has been confirmed and she simply needs to write a detailed letter to Mathis in which Brewer lays out the specifics of Mathis's violations.  She needs to give Mathis an adequate time to respond and if Brewer still believes that Mathis has substantially neglected her duty, Brewer has the clear authority to once again remove her.  End of story.

Post Script:  There are two issues that have generated a lot of confusion. 

First, What's up with the purple dress? 

One Justice--I believe it was Hurwitz--asked Brewer's counsel if the Governor could fire Mathis for wearing a purple dress.  This is a classic law school question.  Hurwitz is taking the Governor's legal position to an absurd extreme and seeing if the position fails.  If Brewer's counsel says, no, then Hurwitz would proceed to less absurd examples until the Governor's counsel conceded that the courts could determine the standard.  The governor's counsel didn't fall for it and insisted that the Governor could indeed fire Mathis for wearing a purple dress.  The media naturally jumped on this as an example of Brewer being unreasonable. 

I would have answered the question differently.  The courts have established standards of deference--most famously, the Chevron standard.  The court can look to see if an action is arbitrary and capricious without having to establish an actual standard.  This allows the Court to set a threshold substantive standard without getting sucked into the trap of defining exactly what the substantive standard will be.  So my answer would have been that the court should determine if the Governor had acted arbitrarily, and once it had determined that she had not, then defer to her judgment.  If the governor had indeed removed Mathis because of her dress, or her hair style, or by flipping a coin, that would be arbitrary and the court could step in.

But they are Draft Maps...

Mathis supporters in the media have been claiming that these are draft maps and they are subject to change, so the Governor acted prematurely.  After all, the draft maps from 10 years ago are dramatically different than the final maps that were adopted by the IRC. 

This would be a good argument if the IRC had simply made a mistake.  However, Mathis has systematically drawn maps that violate the Constitution.  The current maps are not a mistake; they are part of a plan.  She denied Republicans their choice of attorney, she admitted violating the open meeting law in order to select a Democratic operative to draw the maps and she took the maps home over the weekend and returned with maps that violate the Constitutional prohibition against gerrymandering.  Sure, Mathis and the Democrats could have a change of heart and suddenly decide to follow the constitution by respecting communities of interest and compactness.  However, there is no indication that she is willing to do this.  Conversely, instead of revising the drafts, she could simply approve then and submit them to the Justice Department and it would be game over.  So Brewer waited as long as she could wait.

 

 

 

 

 

That's an Interesting Way to Phrase it...

The State Supreme Court used a very interesting phrase upon reinstating Colleen Mathis:

The Court concludes that the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to the intervenor Colleen Mathis does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” by the intervenor Mathis,...

Naturally, the media are interpreting this phrase to mean that the Governor overstepped authority because Mathis's actions didn't rise to substantial neglect of duty etc.  That may indeed be the proper interpretation. 

However, it's an odd way to phrase it isn't it?  The Court said that the "letter" didn't demostrate.  Why not say that the "Governor" didn't demonstrate?

We don't have a full opinion yet, but it looks to me like the Courts objection might be procedural. The Constitution requires that Brewer give Mathis notice and a chance to respond.  It looks like the Court is saying that the letter itself was insufficient.  If that's the case then the Governor simply has to fix the notice and allow time for response. 

We'll know when we get the full opinion, but media celbration looks a bit premature to me.

 

 

 

Who Checks the Fact Checkers?

I've been pointing out how inaccurate newspaper articles are and I wanted to take moment and marvel that the Republic actually has the audacity to run a "fact check" section on statements by elected officials.  It's been my experience that elected officials are much more informed and accurate than journalists.

Here's a great example.  Rep. Terri Proud made this point in a redistricting hearing.

"The IRC is costing our citizens almost $10 million when we can really least afford it."

The fact that we can "least afford it" is obvious, so the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl focused on the $10 million claim.  Let's see the facts that Mary Jo had to work with.  First, the previous commission spent $9.6 million--mostly on legal bills.   Then factor in that the current commission is off to a much worse start than the previous commission and finally, take into consideration that the cost of legal services has risen substrantially in the last decade. 

So how would you asess Rep. Proud's statement?  I would say that it's "true".  You might say that it looks like it's true, and the current commission is on track to spend that much money, but we won't actually know until the law suits are over.  That would be fair. 

What did Mary Jo say?  She declared Rep. Proud's statement to be "False." 

Bottom line: Proud's claim that the commission is costing nearly $10 million is incorrect based on money appropriated to date, and it is hard to speculate on future spending.

Hard to sepculate?  So she declares it false?  Proud will obviously be vindicated...in ten years.  Meanwhile, the Republic gets this free shot at declaring her statement to be false.  When in fact, it's pretty clearly correct.

This is the same Mary Jo Pitzl who misquoted the grounds for removal in her story about Brewer's removal of the IRC Chair. 

 

 

Thank You for Your Support!

This happened a couple months ago, but I just noticed it.  The Washington Post's political blog "The Fix" issued a call earlier this year for the best blogs in each state.  Post readers nominated their favorite blogs for each state and the post tabulated the the results and listed them in a section called "The Best State Political Blogs."  Espresso Pundit is the winner for Arizona.  Thank you for your support.  Here's the story.

Hundreds of loyal Fixistas responded to our call to nominate the best political blog (or blogs) in each of the 50 states.

We got blog comments, tweets, Facebooks messages and plain old emails with recommendations about the best of the best. And, after a painstaking search through all of the nominations, we’ve aggregated them below. Starting tomorrow, you will also be able to find the full list on the left rail of this blog under the decidedly creative “The Best State Political Blogs” tab.