Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Journalism

I ran into former State Rep. Carl Seel at the Princess Christmas celebration over the weekend.   If you remember Seel at all it's probably in this context. 

Local media viciously and endlessly mocked Seel and voters eventually complied with Laurie Roberts' goal to "De-Kook" the Capitol and turned him out of office.   

Notice the issue that Laurie is mocking?  That's right.  Seel's big issue was AHCCCS fraud.  Laurie is not mocking him DESPITE his crusade against AHCCCS fraud, she is mocking him BECAUSE of his crusade against AHCCCS fraud.

Pop Quiz.  What's the biggest political story this year? How about this one?

The adoption scandal involving Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen raises serious questions about how the pregnant women he brought to Arizona were able to get government health care.

Golly, Petersen alleged scheme cost AHCCCS $800,000.  Surely he's the only one right?  This high-profile case that the media ignored for years is likely to be the only time that someone has signed someone up for AHCCCS even though they weren't eligible.  Right?

Of course not.  Petersen's case showed how easy and how lucrative AHCCCS fraud can be.  Maybe someone should have looked in to that, say, ten years ago.  

Beg your Pardon....

Journalists are trained to think and to write.  Well, that's the theory anyway.  So when they commit logical fallacies, misspell words or use terms incorrectly, they damage their credibility and the credibility of the entire profession.  After all, they are trained to write.  They claim that their analytical and writing skills are better than those of bloggers.  However, if they can't get the basics right, why should I believe their analysis on topics on which they aren't trained?

That means that if a columnist has strong opinions but misspells "judgment" by adding an extra "e" and calling it "judgement", I'm not likely to consider him credible on more complex issues like school choice or immigration.

Check out this sentence from today's Republic.   

But the Sun Devils haven’t returned since 1983, begging the question what do these guys have to do to get back?

First, let me concede that the quality of sports writing is much higher than the quality of political writing.  I'm serious.  When was the last time that you saw a team win a major tournament and instead of covering the game, the reporter decided to write a three-part series about an assistant coach who has 20 parking tickets?  That happens in political coverage all the time.  

So it would be great if the rest of the Republic reporters could try to cover their issues as well as the sports reporters.  

That's being said, even the sports reporters make mistakes.  So what's wrong with then sentence?

But the Sun Devils haven’t returned since 1983, begging the question what do these guys have to do to get back?

"Begging the Question" is the formal name of a logical fallacy.  The term does not mean "makes me want to ask this question."  Begging the question is when you assume your conclusion as part of your argument.  "God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God."  It works the other way too.  "The miracles in the Bible didn't occur because miracles aren't real."

When a reporter sees a fact that makes him really want to ask a question, he needs to say "which invites the question."  Sure, this seems picky, but they are professionals and if they want me to agree with their analysis they need to show that they understand the basics of logic and reasoning.  

 

 

 

 

Fake News

Why do legitimate news sites keep publishing these fake "survey" stories?

 

Surely journalists understand that these stories are not real.  They are not based on scientific polling.  They don't have legitimate sample sizes or methodologies.  These surveys are a click bait technique that for profit websites-like Wallethub--use to boost traffic.  Whenever a legitimate news site runs one of these stories as actual news, it diminished the credibility of the site.  Why should I believe your stories if you claim that stuff like this is true?

 

Blasphemy

I agree with Bill Goodykoonz on this one.

I agree.  It is way over the top to describe the impeachment by using the words of Jesus.  The impeachment is a monumental event  but it is trivial when compared to the Crucifixion.  What's worse is the the section "Father forgive them..." is not just quoting Jesus, it is quoting Jesus on the cross.  To Christians, these are among the most important words in the history of humanity. 

So Goodykoontz is correct.  

Too bad he doesn't apply his own standards to his own paper.  Here's a screen shot of a column in which the Republic's Karina Bland quotes Jesus on the cross...in order to complain that the air conditioner in her car quit.  

 

 

 

 

 

Good thing that the Governor is out of the Country

Check this out.

It has been three years since Colin Kaepernick played in the National Football League, one year since Nike Inc. made him the face of a controversial advertising campaign and one month since the sneaker giant was caught in a firefight between the exiled quarterback and the league over a failed workout.

On Monday, Nike again deepened its partnership with the controversial and unemployed athlete when it released a new shoe just ahead of Christmas. The launch of the “Air Force 1 ’07 x Colin Kaepernick,” a black-and-white shoe with Mr. Kaepernick’s image embroidered on the heel, caps a year when the Nike-Kaepernick relationship has consistently provoked sharp reactions—from nixing a July 4-themed sneaker to rancor surrounding a league-organized workout for Mr. Kaepernick.

The Governor freaked out when Nike cancelled the Betsy Ross shoe....wait until he sees this one.  

The Mother of All Corrections

When the dust settles, any professionals who are left at the Republic will be ashamed at the coverage of Paul Peterson.  First let's be clear that the Republic missed the original story.  Sure, they printed a few column inches after a Hawaiian paper broke the story and folks like Robert Anglen are quick to say that they didn't actually "miss" the story.   But it's the story of the year and a few column inches is not coverage.  They missed the story. 

Naturally they have compensated with wall-to-wall coverage that spawned this  insane Laurie Roberts Column. 

Now the Republic Twitter Minions are piling on the fact that Petersen's wife has filed for divorce.   This is simply piling on.  It is salacious and has no relevance to his case or his job.  Somewhere at the Republic there is a professional--maybe Boas or Nowicki--who is cringing that the paper is focusing on the details of his wife's divorce filing.  

And if they are not cringing at the coverage, they had better be cringing at the mistakes.  Check out this correction:

Corrections & Clarifications: A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that Raquel Petersen is pregnant.

My gosh, how could that have happened?   That's not like accidentally saying that she was born in Tulsa.  How could they have published that she was pregnant?  

 

 

Fake Quotes

Check out this Laurie Roberts column.

I know that columnists have a lot of flexibility.  I know that they are expressing opinions.  I know that there is a little poetic license in their craft.  However Laurie doesn't get to say "Rep. Anthony Kern says..."  And then just make up some outrageous statement.  

Frankly, the statement is so outrageous that she can't really even say that he "implied" it.  

 

 

 

The Question that No One is Asking

Ron Hansen wasted our time with a 1,500 word front page Sunday article that asks how John McCain would have voted on Impeachment.   Hansen repeats all the old Maverick history and then concludes...that we have no idea how he would have voted.

Seriously?  Why waste our time?

Actually, I think I know what happened.  

EJ Montini has been flogging this fake story about how McCain would have voted to impeach trump.

Montini hated McCain and spent 30 years trolling him, but Hansen must have looked at the 20-year old quote and thought it had some credibility...after all, Montini has written the same column four times--this one plus these three--so it must be credible, right?  

So Hansen decides to write the "factual" story that's behind Montini's four "opinion" columns so that he can confirm that Montini is right.  Hansen then interviews a lot of people who knew McCain and none of the say that McCain would vote to impeach.  

Then Hansen faced the same dilemma that all reporters face when they work really hard on a story that turns out to be nothing.  "Should I just print it anyway?"

Since the Republic no longer has adult supervision, the answer to that question was "yes."  

So Ron Hansen wasted the lead story on a Sunday edition with a 1,500 word nose picker that asks and then doesn't answer a question that no one other than EJ Montini cares about.

Hansen did manage to show that Montini's speculation about McCain is simply wrong.  All those columns in which Montini channeled the spirit of John McCain and claimed that he knew how the Senator would have voted were just so much dung. 

So the article wasn't completely wasted.   

 

 

 

 

Actual Economic Development

Check out this story about the new stretch of the 202.

The new 22-mile segment of the Loop 202 opened this weekend, which means not only will the commute for tens of thousands of people change but so will open countryside that has long defined the area’s landscape.

Housing, obviously, will be what much of the now vacant land and farmland converts to along the freeway. Dairy farms and alfalfa fields already are transforming to rooftops along the route from southwest Phoenix to Chandler.

Do you know what's unique about this economic development claim?  It's actually true.  

Now compare that to inflated claims about the impact of light rail. Sure folks can claim that the development surrounding the ASU downtown and Tempe campuses is because of light rail. Whatever.

I ride the train, so I'm familiar with the view out the window and with the exception of the Tempe and Phoenix ASU Campuses, the view is dystopian.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classic Bias

Check out this headline.  

Rep. Tom O'Halleran, a moderate Arizona Democrat, says he will vote to impeach Trump

The article goes on to say that:

O’Halleran also stuck with his party to oppose Republican efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act and the GOP’s corporate tax cut legislation in the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

Hmm.  But Ron Hansen still claims that O'Halleran is a "Moderate".