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.