Putting the wood to the TexTrib

James Moore isn't done beating Evan Smith and the Texas Tribune down, but here he turns the paddle over to the former Houston Chronicle writer R.G. Ratcliffe.  Yes, it's their polling.

During the course of my journalism career, I wrote about dozens – if not hundreds – of political surveys. The poll is to a political reporter what the tout sheet is to a horse-race junkie. From the perspective of having watched the sausage made, I can tell you all political polls have about them an element of voodoo.

But the opt-in Internet survey methodology used by the U.T. pollsters and the Texas Tribune may be one of the most black magic of all the polling methods. It essentially uses people who have volunteered to be surveyed and then uses statistical weighting to make the results match the expected voter turnout. (Click here to see About These Polls). It’s a survey methodology so suspect that news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and Roll Call magazine have refused to use it.

Ratcliffe discounts the effect of Nugentpalooza, which erupted after the poll was conducted.  I think that's a gloss-over, as the poll would thus only reflect the brouhaha over Wendy Davis' resume'.  But anyway...

The biggest problem with the U.T./Tribune poll was not when it was done but how it was done. The opt-in survey is fast and cheap and may only be more reliable than one of those television station click surveys because a trained professional political scientist is weighting the results.

(Click here to see the Sampling and Weighting Methodology for the February 2014 Texas Statewide Study. Keep in mind, they say there is a YouGov panel of 20,000 Texans registered, and 1,327 opted to take the survey and then they winnowed that down to 1,200 to create the final dataset. Here’s some key numbers to keep in mind, the Republican primary results were drawn from a panel of 543 voters while the Democratic primary numbers were drawn from a panel of 381.

I'm one of those YouGov surveys.  Actually I am two of them, as I have two separate e-mails and accounts with YouGov.  (But they might have, as Ratcliffe indicates, screened me out.)  You can finish reading the rest of that piece as Ratcliffe dissects the polling methodology and assembles a list of  the various media who refuse to use anything similar.

Let's move on to Carl Lindemann's Inanity of Sanity, where he destroys the whole "donation media" model, particularly as practiced by the TexTrib, PBS (Part II) and NPR (Part I).

Is this entertainment or infotainment? Does this really rate as public journalism serving the PUBLIC INTEREST? Or is PBS, as David Sirota recently wrote, "becoming the "Plutocrats Broadcasting Service"?

Now, this isn't an isolated instance on NEWSHOUR. About two weeks ago, a feature about the union vote at the VW plant in Tennessee fit the same pattern -- a "debate" between a legit source and a Koch-connected State Policy Network propagandist. The propagandist didn't really have an argument. Instead, he spouted an "anti-union feeling masquerading as an argument." Yes, he actually got called out on this -- but not by the moderator.

Do such "contests" in the "marketplace of ideas" help inform us in matters of public interest? Recently, (Ray) Suarez bailed from NEWSHOUR. Maybe he got sick of this charade.

Looking at PBS' flagship news program is especially interesting when considering the Trib; Smith serves on its board of directors. Also, as I've written before, his "confrontational" interview style delivers mild discomfort rather than a moment of truth.

Is this how to "speak truth to power" -- or to cozy up to it?

I don't really think any of this criticism is going to bother the TexTrib all that much... unless their donations begin to wither. And I don't really see that happening.  It IS going to make those of us who read it do so with a far more jaundiced eye, and to that extent I suppose it's worthwhile.

The bloom is definitely off Evan Smith's rose.

Update (March 3): Nobody can deconstruct a lousy poll like Charles Kuffner.  God love him just for reading that Jim Henson defense all the way through; once I got to the "Democratic peanut gallery" crack, I stopped.  And Carl has pinned on his badge and is on the beat.

"I've never signed a Father's Day card, either"

I've spent a lot of this month complaining about things on and off the blog, so when I read this -- and having lost my own Dad just a few months ago -- I had to take a moment and catch myself.

On Father’s Day last June, President Barack Obama welcomed 14 teenagers sporting black-and-white T-shirts that read “BAM” into the Oval Office.

The letters stood not for the nickname occasionally slapped on the president by big-city tabloids, but for “Becoming a Man,” a program run by a Chicago nonprofit working with at-risk youth in the public schools. The president had met the group of young black men once before, when he dropped by one of BAM’s hourlong group discussion sessions at Hyde Park Academy High School last February. He’d pulled up a chair and sat in the boys’ circle that day, talking with them so long about their lives his aides worried he would blow up his carefully planned schedule during his visit to the city.

Now they were meeting again, teenagers from the South Side of Chicago and the president who began his organizing career not far from where they lived. It had already been an emotionally powerful trip for the boys, only two of whom had ever been on a plane before. Now here they were visiting with the most powerful man in the world in the inner sanctum of the Oval Office.

As the teens gathered around the president, one handed him a green and gold Father’s Day card, which all the boys had signed. They had gone out and purchased it the day before, unbeknown to their counselor, Marshaun Bacon, who traveled with them to the White House.

“I never signed a Father’s Day card before,” the young man explained as the president opened the card. “I’ve never signed a Father’s Day card, either,” Obama replied, according to an aide, improbably closing the distance between the Chicago teens and the American president. 

I haven't been a fan of many of the President's policies (the drones, the warrantless wiretapping, the capitulation on the public option) for a long time.  But what he has endured from the "you lie" Republicans in Congress, the vermin who have cried "birth certificate" and Fast and Furious" and "Benghazi" -- and all the rest of the nothingburgers consumed by the vilest of conservatives calling themselves 'patriots' -- has been the single worst social development in American society over the past five years.

Barack Obama continues to set a positive example for many Americans whom the right actually don't consider people.  If you needed more proof of what's gone off the rails during his presidency, then the racists, misogynists, and cold-ass capitalists who keep bleating their daily bullshit will be certain to provide one for you in just a few minutes.

I once worked with a fellow (it's been about thirty years ago now) who had never known his father, but had been told by his mother that the man drove a Schwan truck in town.  So every time he saw a Schwan truck making the rounds, he would pull the guy over in hopes of meeting his dad.  As far as I know, he never found him.

My biggest complaint compared to that is that I won't ever sign a Father's Day card again.  Pretty small potatoes, relatively.

The only real thing I have learned in my half-century-plus on this mudball is that if you aren't making a difference in children's lives -- that would be yours and someone else's, for the record -- then you're not making much of a difference, no matter how often you go to church, no matter how fat the size of your bank account.  And the children whose lives need difference-making the most are the ones who started off with the least.

Find some of those kids and see if you can make a difference in their lives.  Just a suggestion. The reality is that we have so many awful issues and challenges as a country that are going to take a long time to solve.  But something like this?  We can start where we are today.

Kissing Cowboys

... and Cowgirls.  A long, winding road remains ahead, but there is cause for celebration today.

Gay rights supporters cheered a federal judge’s decision in Texas on Wednesday to strike down the Lone Star state’s same-sex marriage ban — with shouts of “Kissing Cowboys!” and “I am proud to be a Texan” — in what one described as a “landmark day" in the bid for lesbians and gay men to wed.

Their opponents, meanwhile, vowed to keep up the fight in what they called an "epic battle."

The decision by U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio is stayed pending an appeal by the state. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he will do so, meaning the case will go before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a similar lawsuit before it from Oklahoma.

Texas is the seventh state to nullify these discriminatory laws since the SCOTUS overturned DOMA in June of last year.  Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia currently recognize gay marriage, including eight states where it became legal in 2013.

Greg Abbott will appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and assuming he loses again there, will roll on to the Supreme Court, along with the other states who cannot stand the thought of marriage equality.  But the funniest thing was this.

Opponents also noted their displeasure in the tweetosphere, but one, State Sen. Dan Patrick, a conservative Republican, apparently tweeted too fast — posting, "MARRIAGE= ONE MAN & ONE MAN," before changing it to "MARRIAGE= ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN. Enough of these activist judges. FAVORITE if you agree. I know the silent majority out there is with us!"

In #txlege news, safe to say that no one saw this tweet coming: pic.twitter.com/e9fGsWIupf
— Reeve Hamilton (@reevehamilton) February 26, 2014

Just knowing that the Abbotts and Patricks of Texas are feeling it getting crammed down their throats again is enough to warm my heart.