How To Turn Advocacy Into "Research"
- Saturday, June 10 2006 @ 07:17 PM CST
- Contributed by: filbert
- Views: 1,341
The headline in the Kansas City Star read:
From the press release of the Missouri report (pdf here), you read that:
Now, I have no reason to doubt that MoDOT's estimate is on track. After all, I live in Missouri and know how bad the roads are here, so I'm all too willing to believe that it will take that kind of scratch to keep Missouri's Interstates flowing smoothly. But nowhere in the news story does it say that TRIP's $10 billion figure came from MoDOT, not TRIP. So saying "A new study says" gives the distinct impression that an outside organization (a "non-profit transportation think tank") is confirming MoDOT's number, when all they're really doing is passing it along. Of course, TRIP itself in the title page of their actual report says that
It would have been nice however if the Star article had properly identified TRIP as an advocacy group, and properly sourced the $10 billion figure. (For one thing, it would have saved me a half-hour researching and writing this article). The Star does say that TRIP
Sure, this is a little thing, but it's all too illustrative of the state of journalism today. Accuracy, context, even the source of information all seem to be of secondary importance to the modern journalist. All that matters is the report itself, and the conclusions you can draw from the report. The excuse is of course "we didn't have room/airtime to put all the information in." But room was found in the article for quotes from the MoDOT's director, source of the $10 billion figure. You'd think that Brad Cooper could have squeezed into the article the fact that the shocking $10 billion figure that TRIP came up with was MoDOT's number. Wouldn't you?
Highway needs? $10 Billion. A think tank says the state needs that much to improve traffic and boost economic growth.The first two paragraphs of the news story:
Missouri needs about $10 billion to expand its interstate system to make travel easier and enhance economic growth, a new study says.The fun begins when you go to The Road Information Program's web site. There you find not only the Missouri study but an almost identical one for the State of Wisconsin. Both are entitled "Saving Lives, Time and Money; A report on the condition, impact, use and future needs of (fill in your State's name) Interstate Highway System." Isn't that special. But let's stay on point here.
A report released Thursday by The Road Information Program, a nonprofit transportation think tank, says that nearly half of Missouri’s urban interstates are over-crowded.
From the press release of the Missouri report (pdf here), you read that:
According to the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), the state faces a $10 billion shortfall over the next 10 years in funding needed expansion of the Interstate system to relieve congestion and sustain economic growth in the state.Well, OK. But note that it isn't TRIP's crack team of analysts coming up with that $10B figure, it's MoDOT.
Now, I have no reason to doubt that MoDOT's estimate is on track. After all, I live in Missouri and know how bad the roads are here, so I'm all too willing to believe that it will take that kind of scratch to keep Missouri's Interstates flowing smoothly. But nowhere in the news story does it say that TRIP's $10 billion figure came from MoDOT, not TRIP. So saying "A new study says" gives the distinct impression that an outside organization (a "non-profit transportation think tank") is confirming MoDOT's number, when all they're really doing is passing it along. Of course, TRIP itself in the title page of their actual report says that
TRIP is supported by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway engineering, construction and finance; labor unions; and organizations concerned with an efficient and safe highway transportation network.In other words, as they themselves (to their credit) put out front, they're an advocacy group for building highways. There's nothing wrong with that. Back in my college days before I got the computer bug, I was headed towards a career in transportation engineering. I like roads. I think highway construction is a good thing.
It would have been nice however if the Star article had properly identified TRIP as an advocacy group, and properly sourced the $10 billion figure. (For one thing, it would have saved me a half-hour researching and writing this article). The Star does say that TRIP
gets some financial support from highway contractors.but that's a pretty mild disclaimer, in my opinion.
Sure, this is a little thing, but it's all too illustrative of the state of journalism today. Accuracy, context, even the source of information all seem to be of secondary importance to the modern journalist. All that matters is the report itself, and the conclusions you can draw from the report. The excuse is of course "we didn't have room/airtime to put all the information in." But room was found in the article for quotes from the MoDOT's director, source of the $10 billion figure. You'd think that Brad Cooper could have squeezed into the article the fact that the shocking $10 billion figure that TRIP came up with was MoDOT's number. Wouldn't you?