Washington state high roaders (or anyone who knows)

[rwc]

Supposedly www.tvw.org is broadcasting the trial live.
I heard from a colleague that today the judge told the Republicans to stop using the "F" word - fraud.

From the PI:

The judge's statement came later, in response to a Democratic motion filed during the noon recess. Raising a charge of fraud in an election challenge is governed by strict rules on when and how to do it, and the Republicans had not followed those guidelines, Bridges said.

"The court does not believe there is a fraud causation element to this case, for whatever that's worth," Bridges said "I am not saying that the evidence is not admissible."

Dale Foreman (former R state party chair) can waste as much oxygen as he wants talking about fraud and seeking admission of evidence he believes supports a claim of fraud, but if you haven't properly made that claim under the law you get nothing but some press. He didn't and can't.

Hmmm, maybe the state Republican party doesn't want to win this after all and this is just about free press coverage. Naaaa - that would be cynical and manipulative. Couldn't be... not Chris Vance the wannabe Senator.

 

[Langenator]

How is it possible to "...investigate the data that the election folks release...", and if it is possible, how is it that a news service would have the necessary access to do so?

From what I understand, it's a simple matter of asking (OK, badgering) the relevant officials to get the info. Not sure if FOIA requests are involved or not. And I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that Sharkansky has a background in statistics, statistical analysis, and/or accounting. He's very good at crunching the numbers and analzying the discrepancies.

If this service has access to information, why doesn't everyone else have access to the same information?

The local papers-the Times and P-I primarily-do have access to the info. They just choose to act as message machines for Gregoire and the state Dem party.

 

[PaulV]

And finally, what is it about this service that makes them more credible than the local Republican headquarters, the local Democratic headquarters, or the guy in Bill's Bar, Grill and Radiator Repair Shop?

That is something you have to judge for yourself by looking at the sources. It helps to have an analytical mind. If you're inclined to think emotionally rather than rationally just go to the site that espouses your point of view and continue to live life on autopilot.

The gentleman who runs the sound politics site actually posts facts and data (publicly available). That the city's newspapers have refused to investigate the information to the same depth as a private blogger is shameful. As for the local TV news, I wouldn't watch them unless I wanted to know if a baby killer whale is swimming in the sound and what they had for dinner.

 

[Jammer Six]

It's always seemed to me that if a news service were truly accurate, and did honest, in depth reporting, restricted themselves to facts, and viewed the issues honestly, that they would be split down party lines. That is, their reports would follow the facts, and so would be liberal part of the time.

Does this guy have support among liberals, too?

 

[rwc]

For what it is worth, Sharkansky has a column in "The Stranger" - a local Seattle weekly and a conservative mouth-piece it is not (to say the very least).

I deal with the media at least a half dozen times a year on issues which have an effect on virtually every Washingtonian. In my experience the inaccuracies reflect an inability (or unwillinginess) to spend the time to obtain a full understanding of the issue(s). For example, a typical reporter investigating a litigated issue will call each side, get their respective off-the-record "background" information (i.e. spin) and then have an on-the-record interview. You are lucky if this lasts for 30 minutes.

Based upon a couple hours effort a story is written that will inevitably get signinficant facts wrong and probably won't delve much into the serious issues if there is something that makes for a nice quote.

To be fair, they have a difficult job, deadline pressures, and editors looking for sexy stories to splash on the front page.

I am always surprised, and grateful, when I meet a reporter who is interested enough and diligent enough to actually get to know something about a topic before touching their keyboard.

 

[316SS]

It's always seemed to me that if a news service were truly accurate, and did honest, in depth reporting, restricted themselves to facts, and viewed the issues honestly, that they would be split down party lines. That is, their reports would follow the facts, and so would be liberal part of the time.

Facts and honesty are anathema to leftist extremists.

316

 

[Jammer Six]

Facts and honesty are anathema to leftist extremists

And to conservative extremists...

I am always surprised, and grateful, when I meet a reporter who is interested enough and diligent enough to actually get to know something about a topic before touching their keyboard.

What's his agenda?

 

[PaulV]

It's always seemed to me that if a news service were truly accurate, and did honest, in depth reporting, restricted themselves to facts, and viewed the issues honestly, that they would be split down party lines.

This assumes that the truth is split down the middle. The only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and road kill.

 

[rwc]

What's his agenda?

You may not believe it, but the agenda most often is to get the story right. Most try hard, but far too many are lazy and willing to work off of press releases without attempting to gain a fuller understanding of the issues.

Granted, many reporters will have an "angle" on a story; or an assumption about it that most often is only partly accurate. In my expereinence that angle has more to do with trying to create some drama (it rarely exists in my work) than with some sort of "right/left" agenda.