Although I’m not one to whine about “media bias” — newspapers and other media being private enterprises entitled by the First Amendment to express the “bias” of their choice — it is dismaying when they do so by distorting, omitting, or manufacturing the underlying facts of the story, or by allowing a source or informant to do so. When they do so deliberately, it reveals a lack of professional integrity. When they do so by inadvertence, it reveals a lack of professional competence.

In other words, slant the story any way you please, but do try to get the facts right.

I suspect inadvertence, or perhaps just editorial laziness — was responsible for the Spokesman-Review’s October 21 story entitled, “Report says cost of living higher in state’s poor neighborhoods.”

“Poor people may feel like they never get a break, but it’s worse than that, according to a study of low-income families in Washington. They are getting gouged,” wrote reporter Kevin Graman.

The story is laced with such phrases as “the findings,” “the state study . . . revealed price disparities,” “the report . . . details how the poor pay more for goods and services,” and so on — language intended to convey an impression that a rigorous scientific investigation had unearthed some damning new evidence of injustices which demand immediate remedies.

The “study” in question was, of course, nothing of the kind. It is, instead, a classic example of a pseudo-study, manufactured to create pseudo-news which advances its authors’ political agenda.

A pseudo-study is a political rant or a pitch for a free lunch dressed up in scientific-sounding language. Most of them are cranked out by leftist “advocacy groups” — nonprofits whose politicking is largely funded by taxpayers, on the pretext that they provide “services” for the poor, i.e., “poverty pimps” (local ACORNS). The studies are “pseudo” because they fail to satisfy even the minimum requirements for a scientific study; most of them don’t even pretend to do so. They are the political equivalent of vaporware.

The cited “study,” apparently hoked up by a coalition of these groups from around the state, purports to “find” that the poor pay more for food, transportation, housing, and financial services than the non-poor. What is the basis for these “findings?” Well, some of these groups’ clients reported that they thought they paid more (anecdotal evidence), or the tract’s authors deduced that they did based on some responses to a questionnaire completed by some of their clients — and on their own assumptions, of course.

The “report” declares, “Our focus groups and community survey found that people struggling to make ends meet pay a higher price for the same goods and services.” The pseudo-study is here. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence in this “study” to support that conclusion.

In order to make such a claim, and justify describing it as a “finding” from a “study,” you need to:

♦ Randomly select a sample group from among the population with incomes below the poverty level;

♦ Randomly select a control group from among the non-poor population;

♦ Compare prices paid for the same goods (same brand names, same size packages, same makes, models, and condition of automobiles, etc.), using objective evidence (e.g., itemized cash register receipts, bills of sale);

♦ Identify factors which might account for any disparity which may be found, and perform a regression analysis to see which of them are most predictive. If the poor are paying more “for the same goods and services,” is it because grocers are practicing price discrimination? Or is it perhaps because more of the poor prefer to purchase from the 7-11 on the corner, rather than walk 3 blocks to Safeway? Do they pay more for transportation because they are being gouged by auto dealers, or because their driving records place them in a high-risk insurance pool? Are they paying more for credit because of redlining, or because, due to their employment and credit histories, they cannot obtain credit with mainstream lenders and must rely on payday loans and finance companies?

Needless to say, this “study” did none of these things. There was no scientific sampling, no control group, no attempt to standardize the goods and services purchased or quantify the cost differences (if any) between the two groups, and no attempt to identify the factors which might account for any disparities found. Indeed, the study does not cite a single quantified example of a cost disparity in any of the goods categories mentioned, much much less explain why it exists. Its flacks are quite emphatic, however, that more subsidies, more free lunches, and more extorion of businesses are needed to remedy this intolerable injustice.

While it is not at all clear that any poor people have been “gouged,” it is quite clear that the Spokesman-Review got snookered.

Tags: public interest, Spokesman-Review

This entry was posted on Friday, October 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm and is filed under political nonsense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.