Follow LA Observed on Twitter here
This week's investigative report on how the Democrats supposedly gamed California's Redistricting Commission did not impress Calbuzz's Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, who called it "misleading at best, dishonest at worst and fatally flawed in any case."
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.
[CUT]
Plainly put, their piece is the worst kind of ersatz "investigative" reporting: lots of heavy breathing and over-reaching conclusions drawn from selectively using, twisting or ignoring facts, relying on innuendo and suggestion, and mischaracterizing crucial elements of the story to inferentially allege an impropriety where none exists. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. Moreover, ProPublica never even called the commission for a comment on its much-ballyhooed "findings." In failing the smell test, this clunker promises plenty, but simply doesn't deliver the goods.
Other Capital veterans are raising similar questions. It's tempting to attribute such sniping to sour grapes - much as the White House press corps pooh-poohed the Washington Post's early Watergate stories. Still, it's worth noting that the ProPublica's two reporters, Olga Pierce and Jeff Larson, have surprisingly little reporting experience - and based on their bios, no background in Sacramento or California. That shouldn't disqualify anyone from writing about the state's baroque political process, but neither does it inspire much confidence in getting the story right. Frankly, the CalBuzz citations are pretty devastating. (I notice this all the time in coverage of economic issues, when less experienced reporters are quick to pounce on the headline number while ignoring the less obvious but more relevant information.) Here's how CalBuzz sums up:
The plain fact is that while Democratic registration has been essentially flat in recent years, Republican registration has fallen into the toilet, and the GOP now represents less than one-third of state voters. This means that Democrats represent an increasing proportion of the electorate; add to that the fact that decline-to-state independents, the fastest growing bloc of registered voters, also tend to vote Democratic, as we've shown previously. This makes [Rose Institute Professor Doug] Johnson's claim that Republicans are entitled to at least their current number of seats, which is the money quote of the Pierce-Larson opus, not only laughable but also intellectually dishonest. Sort of like the whole piece.
Earlier: What to make of report on redistricting shenanigans
Mark Lacter created the LA Biz Observed blog in 2006. He posted
until the day before his death on Nov. 13, 2013.