journalism


Unraveling DOGE reporting

A lot of what’s allegedly happening with DOGE doesn’t make sense. Some things just can’t be happening as reported; others need explanations that no one is giving. The news media are doing their usual bad job of delivering facts.

To start with, what is DOGE? The “Department of Governmental Efficiency” isn’t a department of the government, in spite of its name. Officially, it’s a “special commission” created by the president. It has no power over anybody beyond its own employees. Yet we keep hearing of government employees being fired by DOGE. A notice of termination by DOGE to, for example, a Department of Energy employee has no more significance than one from me. Either the terminations are actually coming from somewhere else, or people are complying for no apparent reason.
(more…)


Rewriting the news in place

This weekend I was informed of a truly outrageous statement by Karoline Leavitt. At least it would have been truly outrageous if it were true, but it now looks like fake news. A response I got on Bluesky pointed at an article on the news aggregator Newsbreak, with the headline “Karoline Leavitt shocks as she tells press ‘Jesus didn’t have electricity either’.” This seemed outrageous even for the Trump team; it wouldn’t fit their line to admit that tariffs could result in privations. I checked for confirmation and found an MSN article with the same claim. This made me think it was reliable. I was wrong.
(more…)


The death of objectivity

Try to find a news source that just gives you the facts, instead of trying to sway your opinion in every story. You can find some on the local level, but national news sources that care about objective reporting are rare. You only have a choice between sites with “left-wing” and “right-wing” agendas. The result is that people don’t trust the news they get. They especially notice when people they like are hit with distortion and selective criticism. They’re likely to turn to sources whose biases match theirs, even if they’re less trustworthy than the mainstream ones.

This is a big factor behind Trumpism. A site which bashes him day in and out, pulling quotes out of context and picking on minor things, is less convincing than one which presents the facts and lets people draw their conclusions. When they repeatedly note that Trump has failed to back up a claim with evidence, yet never do the same with Democrats who do the same, people dismiss the stories as hit pieces. I just came across a CNN top headline: “Trump’s wild and lewd rhetoric reaches a new extreme.” I try to keep myself informed, I know Trump is horrible, and I don’t want to read that article. Do they really think anyone inclined even a little favorably to Trump is going to think, “This article may contain important facts. I should read it.”?
(more…)


Gallup doesn’t understand set theory

According to a Gallup Poll article, “Less than a third of Americans say they would be willing to vote for someone nominated by their party who is over the age of 80 or has been charged with a felony or convicted of a felony by a jury.” If that’s true and Trump and Biden are the major-party nominees in 2024, then two-thirds of Americans will sit out the election for that reason alone.

Is that what the poll actually shows? The article goes on to say, “The poll addressed the issues of felonies and candidate age with separate questions each asked of about half of the poll’s respondents.” That makes it impossible to draw the conclusion stated at the top of the article. It’s an issue of set overlap.
(more…)


How (not) to cover police shootings

On June 26, 2021, a police officer in Massachusetts fatally shot Nathan Allen. Too many killings by police have been unjustified, and some were frankly murder, so it’s necessary to look carefully into each one. Investigators found that this one was justified. Allen had just shot and killed two people without provocation, apparently just because they had dark skin. Just before that, he had shot into an unoccupied car and stolen and crashed a truck. Allen then advanced on the officer while holding a gun. After telling Allen to put the gun down and being ignored, the officer shot him. After handcuffing Allen, the officer tried to treat his wounds, but Allen died.

Assuming everything happened as described, I’d have to say the officer acted properly. He had to shoot because Allen was an ongoing threat to his life and the lives of others in the vicinity. This is miles removed from, for example, Daniel Pantaleo’s killing Eric Garner for illegally selling cigarettes. (Pantaleo was punished by being fired and losing his pension, which he claimed was a horribly excessive punishment.)
(more…)