Grading PolitiFact (Ohio): Tom Niehaus and the defecation implication

Context matters -- We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
--Bill Adair

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Reginald Fields:  writer, researcher
Robert Higgs:  editor


Analysis:

What's the scoop on the poop at the Statehouse building in Ohio?

The PolitiFact account tells of of a "raucous" protest outside the Statehouse building by "over 5,000 union workers."

The protesters’ target was Republican Gov. John Kasich and the GOP-controlled Senate that is pushing the bill.

If the protesters end up murdering Kasich and the GOP-controlled Senate then it will be the fault of Fields and Higgs. "Target." Tsk, tsk.

I'm joking about the martial rhetoric. But the use of adjectives and adverbs in this story does represent a concern in terms of journalistic style.

Use sparingly. Inject colour into copy with strong verbs and facts, rather than adjectives. If you use more than two adjectives before a single noun then rewrite the sentence. A reader struggles with The one-eyed poverty-stricken Greek house painter. Avoid adjectives that imply judgment, e.g. a hard-line speech, a glowing tribute, a staunch conservative.

Reuters Handbook of Journalism

The other problem with adjectives is that they can unwittingly transmit a reporter's bias or feelings. 

About.com:  Journalism

The problem is the same for adverbs.  Speaking of which:

Even Republican Senate President Tom Niehaus the next day grudgingly expressed admiration for the groups’ ability to coordinate so well and make themselves part of the lawmaking process.

We've got video of the grudgingly:



I know!  Total grudgefulness, like, for sure.  Practically raucous in his grudgefulness, he was.

Setting style points aside, what about the facts?

PolitiFact:

It is clear that Kasich and Statehouse Republicans are frustrated by being upstaged by protesters over SB 5 (Thousands more were expected to rally at the Statehouse on Tuesday, March 1).

Oops, sorry, that was an opinion. The facts are a little further in:

Did protesters really defecate in the Statehouse?

We asked Niehaus’ staff about the "documented instances" and were told that several were reported to the senator and that he confirmed them with Statehouse management. That management is handled by the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board.

PolitiFact phoned the Capital Square Review and Advisory Board and left an inquiry message of some sort.  The reply from the board was via voicemail, though the text of the story suggests a direct conversation:

We called the CSRAB, the curators of the Statehouse, for an accounting of any incidents in the building during the protest.

"There was defecation in the stairwell to the parking garage," said CSRAB spokesman Gregg Dodd, but not inside the Statehouse. Furthermore, there is no proof it was left by protesters, and Dodd expressed his doubt. He noted that CSRAB has dealt with this issue before when there are no demonstrations taking place at the Statehouse.

"Unfortunately it happens from time to time even when there are no events going on, and we think it is either a homeless person or persons, or someone waiting for the bus stop," Dodd said, explaining that this particular stairwell leads up to the street level where there are stops for the Columbus bus system.

How do I know Dodd communicated through voicemail?  Simple.  I check the source list PolitiFact provides.  It says "Gregg Dodd, Capital Square Review and Advisory Board, voicemail message, Feb. 25, 2011."

The short source list and voicemail communications suggest a slapdash effort to check this set of facts.  But let's give PolitiFact the benefit of the doubt and assume that Dodd was aware of any and all incidents occurring at or near the time of the protest and reported them accurately to PolitiFact.

That makes Niehaus wrong, doesn't it?

Actually, no.  Though Dodd thought that the doodie was done by a homeless person or the like unassociated with the protest, he did not rule out the possibility.  Why, then, does PolitiFact go on to rule Niehaus' claim "Pants on Fire" as a supposedly ridiculous claim?

Possibly the duo of Fields and Higgs relied on PolitiFact's burden of proof criterion.  If Niehaus doesn't prove it was a protestor who dropped the dookie then it wasn't a protester.  That reasoning perfectly fits the form of the appeal to ignorance fallacy, as I have pointed out in previous posts.

More importantly, did PolitiFact miss Niehaus' point?  Was he trying to portray the protesters as slovenly barbarians?

If so, Niehaus could have used some coaching.  He erred in praising the majority of the protesters for their adherence to decorum and for specifically saying that only a small minority marred that adherence to decorum.  Oh, you didn't know that Niehaus said that?  PolitiFact must have neglected to mention it.  Review the embedded video.

Given that Niehaus did such a horrible job of selling the point that the protesters were excrementalists, is it possible that he was making a different point?

Returning to the context, it is plain that Niehaus praised the behavior of the majority of the protestors, grudgingly or not.  And he gave two examples of blemishes on that exemplary behavior.  One, the unauthorized bowel movements.  Two, the writing on the walls.  PolitiFact gave Niehaus a "small nod" for the accuracy of the latter statement.  If Niehaus' purpose was either to admonish those who perpetrated the acts or to encourage even better adherence to decorum by protesters, then his complex statement supports those aims even if the offending offal was not left behind by the protesters.

The conclusion makes clear the hypocrisy of PolitiFact's fact-checking criteria:

As Senate president, Niehaus is one of the most influential people in the state government and when he speaks people listen. Yet this claim is beyond inaccurate. It’s a ridiculous assertion that is unsupported by the people who actually take care of the Statehouse.

Supposedly Niehaus' claim is "beyond inaccurate."  But in terms of the facts of the story, Niehaus' claim was merely unconfirmed, which is notably echoed in the subsequent sentence ("unsupported by the people who actually take care of the Statehouse.")

PolitiFact, then, is stating that the protesters did not evacuate before leaving the building.  But all they've got in evidence is the hypothesis of one man who works for the board.  If we apply PolitiFact's own standard to PolitiFact's claim, then PolitiFact would have about the same amount of evidence in support of its claim that Niehaus has for his.

Just to make clear, I think it probably wasn't the protesters who were responsible.  The point here is that PolitiFact is making an unequivocal judgment based on equivocal evidence.


The grades:

Reginald Fields:  F
Robert Higgs:  F

Hypocrites who need remedial practice in objective reporting.  That's overlooking a skimpy list of sources.  The reporting looks rushed.

I suppose they can blame their hypocrisy on the ludicrous operational standards required by PolitiFact, namely the ill-conceived burden of proof criterion.