Market forces have pressured major newspapers to reduce investigative efforts, and the lead story in yesterday's New York Times pointedly demonstrated one sorry result of that reduction.
Its top, online headline read: "Panel Said to Alter Finding on Voter Fraud." Well, that's mighty interesting and certainly of vital importance to any healthy democracy, especially when coupled with the teaser, "The revised findings echoed complaints made by Republican politicians of widespread voter fraud."
Did "alter" mean "sinisterly tamper with"? Did "echoed" mean "confirmed"? A reading of the entire piece would answer these questions, no?
No.
Instead, the reader is left with only partisan leanings in mind to reach a conclusion. Why? Because the complete story developed as just another of those "he said, she said" stenographic regurgitations, replete with meticulous balance, and above all, void of independent, investigative, scholarly analysis. After all, such independent analysis would have cost a bundle, and even the preeminent "paper of record," the New York Times, is less and less willing to shell out cash for the sake of uncompromising enlightenment.
Presented as a study in superficiality, below are some highlights of what little investigative meat was there, "according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times." (A review? By experts? Or by 20-year-old interns? Who's to know? The story doesn't say, but its blandness lends credibility to the intern hypothesis.)
A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation.
Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.
Although Democrats accused the board of caving to political pressure, Donetta L. Davidson, the chairwoman of the commission, said that when the original report was submitted, the board’s legal and research staff decided there was not enough supporting data behind some of the claims. So, she said, the staff members revised the report and presented a final version in December for a vote by the commissioners.
Ms. Davidson ... was appointed to the agency by President Bush in 2005.
The commission, which was created by Congress in 2002 to conduct nonpartisan research on elections, consists of two Republicans and two Democrats. At the time of the report, one of the two Democrats had left for personal reasons and had not yet been replaced, but the final report was unanimously approved by the other commissioners.
Ray Martinez III, the Democrat who left the commission for personal reasons, quit last August. He said in an interview that he was not present for any discussion or editing of the voter fraud report.
Mr. Martinez added, however, that he had argued strenuously that all reports, in draft or final editions, should be made public. But he said he lost that argument with other commissioners.
"Methodology concerns aside, we commissioned the reports with taxpayer funds, and I argued that they should be released," he said.... "My view was that the public and the academics could determine whether it is rigorous and if it wasn’t then the egg was on our face for having commissioned it in the first place."
If ever a story cried out for deeper digging -- what would independent academics conclude about the report's rigorousness and "methodology concerns"?; how politically contentious were the commission appointments?; what is Ms. Davidson's political background?; what were Mr. Martinez's "personal reasons," and were his reasons, in fact, more professional than personal?; what was the academic (and political) history of the board's "staff members" who "revised the report"? -- then this is it.
I began reading the story with questions in mind, in search of answers. I finished the story with only questions, and, as you can see, more than I began with.
My partisan leanings indeed suggested a conclusion. There's no doubt about that. Problem is, the story's he-said-she-said quality provides nearly as much ammunition to those with opposite leanings. When all was said and done, there was not much conclusive there, there.
At a minimum, an outside scholarly analysis could have provided most of the "there," but thorough investigative efforts are a dying journalistic practice. When it comes down to satisfying shareholders or democracy, it's not much of a contest.
I'm afraid I don't have a remedy. Market pressures are impersonal, exacting, and brutal. I have only the lament.