Grading PolitiFact (Wisconsin): Mike Huebsch and the capitol cleanup

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

We always try to get the original statement in its full context rather than an edited form that appeared in news stories.
--About PolitiFact

The issue:

The fact checkers:

James B. Nelson:  writer, researcher
Greg Borowski:  editor

Analysis:

At first blush, judging from the headline and deck material, this fact check should be a snap.  We apparently have an unequivocal statement estimating repair costs for the capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin.

But very quickly we find something curious in this fact check story.  We don't have a quotation.  No quotation marks in the headline or subsequent deck material.  And the body of the story produces no improvement in those results.

What's going on?

Apparently, contrary to PolitiFact's stated methods, this PolitiFact Wisconsin fact check is proceeding based on paraphrases from Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel news accounts.

If there's one saving grace in this disgrace, it's the fact that the Journal-Sentinel happens to serve as the home base for PolitiFact Wisconsin.  So James B. Nelson can just shout across the room and ask Don Walker, Jason Stein and/or Bill Glauber to produce their story notes or tape recordings in order to produce a definitive quotation that settles any questions about the nature of the statement he's fact checking.

Unfortunately, we have absolutely no evidence from the story or source list that PolitiFact Wisconsin went to any such great lengths to obtain the truth of the matter in this case.  We're stuck with the news accounts until a transcript of the court proceedings, or the like, appears.

The supposed claim from Huebsch comes straight from Don Walker's Journal-Sentinel politics blog:

Madison - State officials said Thursday that damage to the marble inside and out the State Capitol would cost an estimated $7.5 million.

Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the state Department of Administration, said in Dane County court that estimates of damage to marble includes $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to supervise the damage.

The later Journal-Sentinel story, by Stein and Glauber, contained a slightly different account.  Or rather, two different accounts that vary from Walker's.  First:

Madison - Officials charged with overseeing the state Capitol Friday backpedaled sharply from their estimate - delivered in a high-profile court case only the day before - that demonstrators did more than $7 million in damage to the building and grounds during the tumultuous yet peaceful protests that erupted Feb. 15.

The first one substantially agrees with Walker's account.  "(M)ore than $7 million" is a fair way to represent $7.5 million.

Second:

It was Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the Department of Administration, who said in court Thursday that costs for a full cleanup and restoration at the Capitol could reach $7.5 million.

"It's important to note that the $7.5 million described yesterday (Thursday) in court was the information I had available to me based upon estimates provided me by the Division of State Facilities," said Michael Huebsch, secretary of the Department of Administration, during a news conference.

That would be Plale's division.

But on Friday, Plale said "I think that's more of a worst-case scenario."

Stick with me.
1)  We have another paraphrase of Renlund, this one stating that the cleanup cost "could reach" $7.5 million.
2)  "(C)ould reach" is a different claim than "will reach."
3)  It's very important in fact checking to have an accurate account of the claim.

Time out:

Our rulings are based on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time.
--Bill Adair

Stick with me again:
4)  Huebsch said he got the $7.5 million estimate from the Division of State Facilities.
5)  Jeff Plale of the Division of State Facilities calls the $7.5 million estimate "a worst-case scenario."
6)  A "worst-case scenario" fits well with high-end estimate that "could reach" $7.5 million (see #1).

This latter section of the Journal-Sentinel story is written as though the facts are contradicting Huebsch and Renlund.  But that's only the case if the first paraphrase is the accurate one of the two.  And we have no way of knowing if we should rely on that paraphrase over the latter one.

And neither does PolitiFact, based on the list of sources provided.  For what it's worth, during Huebsch's Mar. 4 press conference he emphasized that the $7.5 million figure was a high-end estimate, though without making clear how the figure was communicated by Renlund during the court proceedings.

In the end, we can have no fact check without a definitive version of the original statement in its original context.  Yet PolitiFact gave us the fact check anyway.  As a result, the fact check is a fake and a farce.


The grades:

James B. Nelson:  F
Greg Borowski:  F

Journalists reporting badly.


Afters:

Something about the news story by Stein and Glauber caught my eye.  It was the photo accompanying the story. Isn't it touching the way the protesters carefully used blue masking tape in order to attach their sign to the marble?

Credit is due for using the blue tape.  I won't minimize that aspect of the photo.  But what caught my eye is the evidence that the sign was originally affixed using duct tape.  It's most obvious in the center top of the sign, where the old tape is still attached but folded under the sign.  A close examination indicates the same in the upper left hand corner.  One may infer that duct tape was also originally used at the top right of the sign.

I wonder what became of the sticky residue?

I just found it ironic that a story containing an emphasis on the supposedly inflated cleanup estimate featured evidence supporting the potential need for expensive restoration, that stemming from the porosity of marble and the damaging effects of adhesive over time.


Mar. 9, 2011:  Polished the delivery in a few sentences, and most especially corrected spelling of "attach" in the first paragraph of the "afters" section.  I must have spelled it "attack" because of my right-wing affinity for violent rhetoric.