[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

ProPublica Ignored Expert Advice When Producing Redistricting Story

by: Robert Cruickshank

Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 13:40:26 PM PST


The scandal surrounding the ProPublica article on California redistricting is intensifying today as more damning revelations emerge about the flawed way the article was assembled. Over at Calbuzz Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine break an important part of the story - that the article's authors interviewed a Public Policy Institute of California expert who explained why the final district lines were sensible, but that this never made it into the article:

All you really need to know about their over-reaching piece is this: the reporters studiously ignored documented research and statistical evidence they were provided that conflicted or undercut their conclusion - that projected Democratic gains in the state's House delegation are the result of a secret and nefarious partisan manipulation of the political naïfs on the commission.

In the course of their reporting, Calbuzz has learned, Pierce interviewed Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California, one of the state's top non-partisan reapportionment experts, who explained to her that the gains forecast for Democrats represent a logical and expected result given a) demographic changes in the last decade and b) the criteria the commission was charged with using.

McGhee even emailed Pierce an advance copy of a 45-page analysis of the commission plan he co-authored with Vladimir Kogan of UC San Diego, which is scheduled to be published in the California Journal of Politics and Policy in a few months. Among its conclusions: given the gerrymandered districts used for the last decade, "it seems unlikely that it is possible to draw any plan that increases competition among congressional seats without also advantaging the Democrats."

But when the ProPublica report published Wednesday - claiming that Democratic operatives had "managed to replicate the results of the smoke-filled rooms of old" (yes, they actually wrote that) - there was no mention of the detailed and comprehensive McGhee-Kogan research, nor even a reference to the facts, background and context on which it is based.

"If there was a credible argument on the other side," of ProPublica's conclusion, McGhee told us, "I don't understand why they didn't include it."

That's pretty damning. Nowhere in the ProPublica article was this analysis ever mentioned or hinted at. One would assume that if the authors were interested in serious journalism, they would have included this perspective in some form.

Instead they were pursuing a "Democrats are bad too!" story intended to balance out their reporting on genuine ways Republicans monkeyed around with redistricting in other states. Like Politifact, ProPublica put their desire to placate Republicans ahead of getting the story right.

Over at the San Francisco Chronicle, Carla Marinucci spoke to one of the Decline to State commissioners who dismissed ProPublica's charges as "dead wrong":

"As a commission, we ran a very transparent process, so some of the allegations made in the story are easily disproved by a look at our website and the criteria we used," said Connie Galambos-Malloy, one of four "decline to state" voters on the 14-member commission. "If the voters investigate, it's clear that most of the allegations are dead wrong."...

Galambos-Malloy said the commission "wasn't contacted before the story" for comment prior to the piece's publication - a move she calls regrettable.

"I wasn't reached out to," she said. "And the story just doesn't match the process we went through."

Rob Wilcox, the media spokesman for the commission, confirmed in an email today: "Three Commissioners were interviewed in general about the Commission's process in early November."  But "ProPublica did not contact the Commission for comment on the specifics of their investigation following those initial conversations," he said.

That's pretty shoddy journalism from ProPublica, and casts further doubt not only on the conclusions reached in their story but also their basic credibility as a news outlet.

One of the authors of the story, Olga Pierce, took to Twitter to respond to David Atkins' post at Hullabaloo. Pierce dodged the substantive issues raised by Atkins and by others who have questioned her article to make what was essentially a non sequitur:

@DavidOAtkins I greatly respect your opinion, but we didn't say anything in our story about the California state democratic party.

So? If she was hinting at the DCCC, it still doesn't make any difference. The criticisms we're making weren't about the California Democratic Party or about Democrats more broadly. No, we are challenging her "correlation equals causation" reasoning that ignored the evidence showing why the new district lines were a reasonable outcome and how there's no evidence to indicate any of the organizing efforts actually impacted the final maps.

Indeed, if the DCCC was trying to influence the outcome (and there's nothing wrong with doing so) they did not exactly succeed. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman are drawn into a district together, as were Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza (who chose to retire, costing Democrats a representative in the crucial Central Valley). So too were Janice Hahn and Laura Richardson. Lois Capps' seat became much less safe and she will face a stiff challenge from Abel Maldonado next year.

Neither Pierce nor ProPublica have yet seen fit to offer any other responses to the mounting criticism their article is facing. Instead they appear content to let their reputations erode in the hopes that at least they made California Republicans happy.

Finally, I got an email from Dave Meyer of the Rose Institute who was upset at my post yesterday. In that post I quoted California Democratic Party chair John Burton who called the Rose Institute "Republican funded." Meyer said "the Rose Institute takes non-partisanship extremely seriously. We receive no support or funding of any kind from any political party." Of course, that wasn't exactly what Burton charged - he was saying Republican donors back the Rose Institute and claimed Rose has "Republican ties," which wasn't the same as Meyer's denial. Additionally, the Rose Institute lost the contract to advise the redistricting commission earlier this year in part due to failure to disclose information, including their donors, that the commission required.

Still, I've included Meyer's comments above so you can decide who's right and who's not. That's more than can be said for ProPublica and Olga Pierce.

Robert Cruickshank :: ProPublica Ignored Expert Advice When Producing Redistricting Story
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

A legal analogy (0.00 / 0)
Suppose two sides went to court to plea their sides of a case.  One side organized a legal team, set up a case, got expert witnesses and brought in a jury consultant.  The other side just showed up to court and said their peace.

The side that was prepared and serious about doing battle win.  The other side starts whining about all the preparation and intelligent input the other side did.

Was the result based on the merits of the case or on the superior trial preparation?  Who know and who cares.  As long as the process is fair and everyone has a chance to present their best case, the results are credible.

Note to Republicans: You set up the process and should have known it far better than the Democrats.  Get your shit together and quit whining.


Republicans' pose doesn't pass the laugh test (0.00 / 0)
The whole ProPublica thing is a huge joke. Even the "ultra-liberal" Redding Record Searchlight says that: "the Republicans' pose as innocent victims of a terrible deceit doesn't pass the laugh test."

Here's the complete editorial:

Republicans in California are shocked - shocked! - that politics was going on in this year's political redistricting.A detailed article released online Wednesday by the investigative-reporting shop ProPublica - "How Democrats Fooled California's Redistricting Commission" - reported on how Democratic operatives, organized out of Washington, used a variety of sub-rosa angles to try to influence the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

That independent board, created by voter initiative, for the first time this year drew new political district boundaries without making incumbents' interests the top priority.The Democrats' prime method, according to ProPublica? They offered testimony, nominally in the name of citizens or independent groups, that favored their own congressional representatives, all the while hiding their own party affiliation. In essence, they used front groups to manipulate the commission.

This bit of political subterfuge, to hear Republicans tell it, undermines the integrity of the entire redistricting. Tom Del Beccaro, the state party chairman, wrote in a message to party supporters, "The report systematically lays out the corrupt manipulation of what should have been an open and transparent process."

Please. The Republican operatives' real beef is that they tried to play the same game but failed to pull it off.We're not privy to insider discussions among congressional Republicans about their redistricting strategy, but we did closely follow the new maps' unfolding as they affected the north state.

And what did we see? We saw Erin Ryan testify to the Citizens Redistricting Commission at Shasta College in April. She talked about how her work with the Girl Scouts, the United Way and private business had taken her all over rural Northern California over the years, and how the rugged geography made it implausible to link the conservative inland north state with the liberal North Coast - an idea floated by those keen for more political competition. She argued instead for a district centered on Interstate 5.

Ryan's geography lesson was persuasive and accurate, but somehow amid her list of bona fides she never got around to mentioning that she worked for Sen. Doug LaMalfa, who was very keen to keep a safe Sacramento Valley district for himself.

We saw comment letters to the commission from at least one other aide to LaMalfa and members of the Shasta County Republican Central Committee, again arguing about the importance of Sacramento Valley districts (which would have suited LaMalfa and Assemblyman Jim Nielsen) - and again neglecting to mention their partisan ties.

We saw the Shasta County Board of Supervisors corralled into the argument, sending a letter to the redistricting commission that advocated keeping Shasta County in a Senate district with Rocklin (as it has been for the past decade) instead of Roseville (as it will be under new maps). That change would have maintained a convenient status quo for LaMalfa and his fellow state Sen. Ted Gaines, and indeed it turned out LaMalfa's office had drafted the letter for the supervisors to sign.

Are these dirty, underhanded machinations? Or just the rough rules of hardball politics? Take your pick. Either way, though, the Republicans' pose as innocent victims of a terrible deceit doesn't pass the laugh test.  


[ Parent ]
thanks for posting, Steve, I'm glad to know about that editorial n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
wtf? (8.00 / 1)
"we didn't say anything in our story about the California state democratic party"

what the h*ell is wrong with these two reporters? I already know they can't write clearly and that the story kept promising "corruption" without delivering it, but apparently they can't remember what they wrote, either.

Over the decades, few party bosses were better at protecting incumbents than California's Democrats. No Democratic incumbent has lost a Congressional election in the nation's most populous state since 2000.

As they drew the lines each decade, California's party bosses....

As somebody interested in redistricting, as a citizen, as a local member of the Dem Central Committee, and subsequently as a local reporter, I followed the commission's work and testified via email and at the Santa Rosa hearing, where we heard many Marin County residents, some of them most certainly not Democratic Party operatives, as per their own self-identification, testify against creating a gerrymandered Congressional district that "crossed the Golden Gate Bridge."

Isn't using the Golden Gate Bridge as a natural boundary for a Congressional district exactly the kind of common sense redistricting that California citizens wanted to see? The idea that the Dem Party had to brainwash the commissioners so they wouldn't create a gerrymandered district that "crossed the bridge" is ludicrous.

My testimony didn't mention the GG bridge, but focused on opposing horizontally drawn districts on the North Coast and criticizing the commission for lack of notice/outreach to Mendocino County media about the official hearings for our region, which were held early on in Redding and Marysville.

The Pro Publica story is a huge "fail" on many levels, including being hard to follow, which means, as the story's editor(s) know very well, even if the young reporters themselves don't, that casual readers will give up reading and assume the story delivers on the "corruption" it promises in the lead.

One thing the reporters did get right, although it hardly was explored: the commission was under-funded and under-staffed and public comment was not organized effectively.

A year-end thanks to Calitics, and Merry Christmas to all.  


Thanks For Your Work On This Story & Continuing Coverage, Robert (0.00 / 0)
We're happy to be reprinting your original story for our readers in the year-end issue of Random Lengths News that comes out next week.  But as things continue to unfold we might want to do something more in January.  

This is a perfect book-end to the PolitiFact "Lie of the Year" fiasco--in both cases purportedly "neutral" "non-partisan" organizations turn themselves into rightwing mouthpieces, and do it so badly that they inadvertantly do some good by showing people so unmistably what hacks they have become.

STILL, however unmistable it may be, it takes skill & persistence in parsing what they've done (and not done) so that the full impact sinks in & is recorded for future reference.  And that's what you deserve special kudos for.

Merry Christmas!


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox