Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Pure Fiction

Recall that the town of Bisbee established a Civil Union ordinance that it claimed would only apply within the town limits.  Unfortunately, the town used a bill that failed in the Legislature as a model, so the ordinance purported to change various state laws affecting community property, inheritance and insurance.  It should be obvious that a city ordinance doesn't trump a state statute and AG Tom Horne wrote Bisbee a letter saying that it needed to remove the reference to statute. 

Bisbee attorneys brought in an lawyer from the Lambda legal defence and education fund and after consultation decided to remove the references to state statutes.

Here's how the Associated Press described the changes.

A groundbreaking civil union ordinance in the southern Arizona city of Bisbee will lose much of its punch after Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne on Monday said he’s reached an agreement in principle on changes that will remove his opposition and a threat to sue to block it from taking effect.

I think that's a fair description. 

Now read Republic Columnist EJ Montini's description of the events.

The little town in southeast Arizona did what no other town in Arizona dared to do.
 
And didn’t waver.
 
And didn’t shrink under threats of lawsuits.
 
And won.

Montini's account is pure fiction.  The town made the changes that Horne wanted and according to the AP the ordinance will lose much of its "punch."  After the town made the changes that Horne sought, he agreed not to sue. 

Now read Montini's description again.  That's not opinion, it's pure fiction. 

Better Uninformed than Misinformed

I like to point out media stories that misinform readers.  Check out this paragraph in a story by Ken Alltucker.

Metro Phoenix has fewer days of bad smog and year-round soot but its air still ranks among the most polluted in the nation, according to the American Lung Association.

This story ran on A1 above the fold accompanied by a scary picture of a hazy skyline.  Naturally, if you didn't take a lot of time to analyze the story, you would conclude that it is bad news.   If the story were simply written as a straight news story, it would say "Phoenix Air Quality Improves."  However, there are several tricks in the story that give you a false impression.  I've already alluded to the first trick; the photograph of dirty air accompanies an article about improved air quality.  If you were to read the first paragraph and look at the picture, you would think that the air is bad.

The second trick is to tell the story from the perspective of the American Lung Association.  Why not simply quote EPA statistics about the air quality in metro Phoenix?  Because then the article would say that the air is cleaner than it has been in decades. 

Notice that the American Lung Association isn't described?  Now check out this article about the Goldwater Institute wining an injunction against the Phoenix police union.

The union also lashed out at the Goldwater Institute, calling the conservative think-tank’s legal actions “nothing more than a thinly veiled union-busting tactic falsely cloaked in the guise of saving taxpayer money.”

Notice that Goldwater is a "conservative think-tank" but the American Lung Association is just, well, the American Lung Association.  But the Lung Association is certainly as liberal as Goldwater is conservative.  Furthermore, the Lung Association raises money in order to lobby for cleaner air.  In addition to being liberal, they have a financial incentive to exaggerate poor air quality and they are certainly a less credible source than the EPA or the County Air Quality Department.  

So why not disclose their bias or their financial conflict?  Or even better, why not quote a neutral agency?  Why take an article about improving air quality and tell it from the perspective of a liberal lobbying group that questions air quality in order to get funding? And if the paper is not going to identify liberal groups, why label the conservative ones?  There's a word for that...let me see, tip of my tongue..."Bias." That's right, I've heard of that.

Here's another trick, notice how the first paragraph describes the air?  It concedes that the air is better, but it "still ranks among the most polluted in the nation."  That's a clinic in manipulation.  Notice that the Lung Association doesn't compare the air to what it used to be, it compares the air to other places. That means that even though the air throughout the country is getting cleaner, Phoenix can still be called "among the worst".  You see that trick all the time.   That's why K-12 funding increases and Arizona still ranks 48th.  Well, if all the states are spending more, what does it mean if we stay the same?  Why not report that our spending in real dollars is increasing. 

There's a corollary of the ranking trick.   Schools, for example, like to say that their percentage of the state's  budget is falling.  That doesn't mean that they are getting less money, it means that other budget items (generally health care) are rising faster.  However, reporters use those statistics as a way to hide facts like the air is getting cleaner, or K-12 funding is rising in real terms. 

However, in this case Ken Alltucker's use of  the ranking trick is even more obvious. That's because the poor ranking theme is actually self debunking.  Here's the second paragraph.

The association’s annual air-quality report, issued Wednesday, ranked Phoenix as the 18th most-polluted metropolitan region as measured by year-round particle pollution. The Phoenix area ranked No. 7 last year and No. 2 in 2011.

So we went from number 2 to number 7 and now we are number 18.  That means that even though the air in the entire country is getting cleaner, our air is getting cleaner even FASTER than the rest of the country.  So even using the Lung Associations bogus comparison trick, we are improving. 

This ranking trick is further enhanced by the word "particle" which is a technical term for a specific type of pollution and happens to be Phoenix's worst problem.  Phoenix's ranking on other measures is even better, but then the story would be about how clean Phoenix's air is when compared to the rest of the nation. 

Here's my favorite trick in the article.  I know I sound picky here, but this is effective because it's so subtle.   Good writers know that you can't say "one of the most".  That's because "most" like "best" is a superlative.  There's only one "most" just like there's only one "dirtiest" or "best."  Reporters know that they shouldn't use "among the most" but it's such an effective way to take a city that's 18th and define it as "worst."  I would like to finish 18th in a race and be called the "fastest."   Or maybe I'm "among the fastest." 

The unbiased story is that Phoenix still has some problems, but our air quality is getting better every year.  It's cleaner than it was last year and it's much cleaner than it was 15 or 20 years ago.  And even with the population growth, the air certainly MUCH cleaner than it was 30 or 40 years ago.  In fact, it's getting cleaner at a faster rate than the rest of the country's air is getting cleaner.

Naturally, if you read that article, you wouldn't understand that the air is cleaner.  That's because you are not supposed to. 

Speaking of the Real World...

The Republic's Linda Valdez wrote this "quick hit" for this morning's Republic.

With the budget and Medicaid expansion still undone, Arizona’s intrepid lawmakers have decided to cut back their work week to three days.

The Arizona Republic’s Mary Jo Pitzl reported there’s little for lawmakers to do while their leaders hash out a deal with the governor. But this could be a model for those of us who don’t live off the taxpayers’ dime.

Just say: “Boss, I haven’t been able to finish my work, so can I have some time off?” How do you suppose that would go over in the real world?

Dude, Linda Valdez works out of her home...in Tucson. That's right.  She has a six figure full time job for a Phoenix based company and she spends nearly all of her time working out of her home in Tucson.  Meanwhile, she is criticizing Legislators who have part time jobs for which they make $24,000 representing constituents all over the state.  Many of their activities occur in their districts on evenings and weekends so they do full time work for part time pay.  Meanwhile, she sits at home 5 days a week and is harassing them for "only" coming to Phoenix 3 days a week. 

Unbelievable.

Post Script:  OK, what's up with that picture?   I realize that she works out of her house in Tucson, so she doesn't have access to a Republic photographer, but that classic Facebook, hold the camera yourself shot looks really freaky...and I'm not even going to speculate why she's standing in front of that single wide trailer.  

Strike Everything

Legislators and lobbyists are playing in a charity baseball game tonight at Tempe Diablo stadium.  Admission is free, but donations to Phoenix Children's Hospital are encouraged. Click here for more details.

Hey Big Spender...

The Capitol Times has been going through lobbying reports and printing highlights.  Unfortunately, it seems like they haven't dug deeply enough to actually understand what's going on.  For example, the paper mentions that I've spent over $64,000.  Wow, that's a pretty impressive amount and would certainly qualify as a lot of lunches.  However the paper fails to say what I spent that money on. 

Nearly all of that money was for special events.  Here's an example.  I run the Arizona Competitive Power Alliance and that job mostly entails litigation in front of the Corporation Commission, however as Alliance Director, I also host an annual Energy Conference.  Click on last year's brochure  to get an idea what the event looks like.  As you can tell I have participants from the ACC and Executive.  I also have guests from various agencies and I invite legislators.  I usually have about 250 participants only a few of whom are elected officials and most of those serve as panelists.  The event costs about $20,000 and since there are elected officials in the room I list the entire expenditure as a "Special Event". 

My case is simply an example, I'm sure there are dozens of cases that have been taken out of contest.   So while I'd like to get credit for being some sort of big time mover and shaker, the reality is that I'm a banquet coordinator.  The cool part is that I have a TON of Marriott points...which is nice.

Message Received

I thought this quote from the Republic's recent immigration article was funny.

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said if federal reform passes, that’s even more reason for Arizona to overturn SB 1070. “We need to repeal all the bad public policy that’s been passed,” he said. “That’s the first step forward, Arizona’s first step in truly tackling realistic immigration reform.”

Ah yes, the hapless Mr. Gallardo.  Now he wants to repeal the immigration laws.  Maybe he should have thought of that before he pushed for the Employer Sanctions law.  Here's how the Arizona Republic covered the story in 2005.

Democrats appointed to the conference panel to smooth versions of the bills opposed removing the employer sanctions."We must send a message to both the business community and the federal government," said Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.

Looks like the federal government got that message.  

Defer This...

I find the "Deferred Action" controversy to be really interesting.  Republicans are upset and Democrats are pleased that President Obama has agreed not to deport illegal immigrants who were brought here as children and meet certain qualifications.  Wait a second.  Think back a few years.  Did George Bush deport high school kids?  The irony is that the policy under previous Presidents was that if you made it into the country, you didn't get deported unless you committed a serious crime.  No one even considered taking a kid who has lived here since he was a child and deporting him while he was in high school. 

The only reason that President Obama needs to have a deportation exemption is that he has been engaging in mass deportation.  That's the great unspoken in this debate.  President Obama deported over 400,000 people last year.  So far in his presidency, he's deported over a million people.   He flies 747s full of illegal immigrants back to Mexico every day.   

So now he's decided to stop deporting people who were brought here as children.  And since the media never really explains that Obama has engaged in mass deportation, Republicans think that his deferred action policy is a sign of weakness and Democrats see it as a sign of hope. 

Mass deportations--together with drone assassinations and federal marijuana enforcement--are areas where President Obama is much more aggressive than President Bush, but the left doesn't complain about it and the media don't cover it, so very few people really understand it.  

Political Correctness at the Expense of Clarity

The Republic had an interesting article about illegal immigration on Sunday.  I recognize that it's hard to write articles about illegal immigration because a lot of people are offended by the term itself.  But while I respect the reporter's desire to avoid charged terms, they need to make sure the articles are clear.  Check out this paragraph.

Brewer continues to deny driver’s licenses to young immigrants. Legislative leadership continues to kill bills proposing to overturn SB 1070 and other controversial immigration-enforcement laws. And lawmakers continue to introduce immigration bills.

The paragraph only works if the reader understands that he has to put "illegal" in front of the references to immigrants or immigration.

That's fine in theory, however it gets really confusing when we start talking about immigration reforms that don't affect illegal immigration.  For example when Congress talks about changing the visa requirements for student immigrants, they are talking about legal immigrants, when the reporter talks about "young" immigrants, she means illegal immigrants who were brought here as children.  Many of them, of course, are older than student immigrants who are applying for H1-B visas. 

A Lesson in Propaganda

When I mention that newspapers are going away, I occasionally get someone who asks how we will get accurate information.  Newspaper reporters pride themselves on being different from reporters in other media and especially bloggers and the general public occasionally falls for the trope that newspapers are somehow accurate.  So I like to point out that ways in which newspapers create a false narrative that leaves readers not only less informed, but miss informed.  I'm not talking about little errors in tangential facts, I'm talking about fundamental underpinnings of major stories that the newspapers simply leave out or get wrong either through carelessness, bias, or group think.

Take this morning's Republic hit piece on Senator Jeff Flake by reporter Rebekah L. Sanders.  Sanders creates the false narrative that the Senate vote was a turning point in the success or failure of the legislation and that Flake's no vote was a critical component of that failure.  Here's a great example.

Even though gun-control advocates have vowed to continue their fight and step up pressure on Congress, experts say the debate appears over,

Sanders is creating a false narrative in order to paint Flake as an obstacle for real reform.  Anyone who hasn't  been fooled by this narrative will know that this bill had absolutely no chance in the US House of Representatives.  The Senate vote was meaningless.  There was never going to be a bill.  Sure, the President can get all angry, and supporters can be all sad, but the narrative that the media is attempting to create that this bill was a turning point is simply false. 

Unfortunately, Giffords' emotionally charged accusations, fallacious reasoning and name calling have  lowered the quality of the debate and the media have been happy to play along. 

Flake for his part is taking the high road in his response to Giffords.

Flake said he read the fiery guest column by Giffords in the New York Times saying senators should be ashamed of themselves for giving in to fear, but he declined to respond to its criticisms directly.

It's not Flake's responsibility to point out that Giffords' New York Times diatribe is a clinic on logical fallacy.  But it would have been great for Rebekah Sandars to have acknowledged it, or at least had the training to notice it.

Here's the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto on Giffords' Op Ed.

Giffords's 900-word jeremiad should be included in every textbook of logic and political rhetoric, so rife is it with examples of fallacious reasoning and demagogic appeals. Let's go through them:

Taranto does indeed go through the full list of fallacies, from Begging the Question and Appeal to Authority to Guilt by Association and False Dilemma.  He even takes a tour through one of may favorite fallacies, the "No true Scotsman." 

Take a moment and read Giffords' piece, then read the Taranto column.  Then reflect on whether this bill had any chance of making it through the House...then read Sander's hit piece on Flake again and ask yourself if readers are more informed about the issue or less informed about the issue after reading it.  I think you will find that those who read the article will have a weaker understanding of the issues after reading it. 

Post Script:  I'm not the only one to notice the extraordinary level of bias displayed by the media over the Senate vote, and Rebekah Sanders is not the only reporter engagaged in generating this level of propaganda.  Here's an interesting story from Politico.

Even by the standards of today’s partisan media environment, the response has  been noteworthy. Television hosts, editorial boards, and even some reporters  have aggressively criticized and shamed the 46 Senators who opposed the plan,  while some have even taken to actively soliciting the public to contact them  directly.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-debate-triggered-media-bias-90306.html#ixzz2QvvREbVl

 

 

 

 

Fool Me Once....

Cities are finally learning that Stadiums are not economic development.  There are dozens of examples of cities losing money after falling for sports mogul's fancy spreadsheets.  Detroit--with three professional sports teams while wolves retake abandoned neighborhoods--is the best example of sport team folly.

The best local example is Glendale.  Former Mayor Elaine Scruggs envisioned Glendale as a sports Mecca only to lose millions on ill-conceived bets on failed projects.  Like the timing of most political fiascos, Scruggs got to be there for the ribbon cuttings and newspaper praise, while the elected officials who followed her have to close libraries in order to pay for projects that lose money.

While sports moguls are still asking for handouts, it seems like city officials have learned from the past.

Here's an article about the Cardinals relocating to Glendale. 

The team’s desire to move its camp from Flagstaff to Glendale bogged down weeks ago when Cardinals executives asked Glendale officials for a new parking garage as part of the deal, according to Glendale officials.

So the Cardinals burned their bridges with NAU in order to move to Glendale and then at the last minute asked Glendale for a parking garage...and Glendale was smart enough to refuse so the Cards are stuck.

Breaks my heart.