Here's some "news" that the P-I knows is wrong but refuses to correct.
Earlier this month, the P-I published an editorial applauding the federal court ruling that prohibits the state from verifying the information on a voter registration form, citing this fact:
Lisa Oldham from Clark County completed an accurate voter registration form ... She skipped an election [on May 16] "because I knew I was not registered and would not be able to vote."As I've noted before, Lisa Oldham was not eligible to vote on May 16, because she did not live in any of the districts that held the special election of May 16. It is not factually correct to report that "She skipped an election", least of all with the P-I's implication that she skipped the election only because the state's error caused her to skip it. The P-I editorial page advertises a "corrections policy"
It is the policy of the P-I's Editorial Board to promptly correct factual errors in editorials and in opinion essays.I've emailed the details to P-I editorial page editor Mark Trahant and suggested he might issue a correction. I sent him the e-mail I received from the Clark County Auditor a couple of weeks ago, and I sent him the Secretary of State's court filing that I posted yesterday. Trahant declines to issue a correction, claiming that the editorial merely reported Oldham's stated beliefs and is therefore not incorrect. He invited me to send my comments in a letter for publication.
I disagree. The editorial did not simply relate Oldham's stated beliefs as mere beliefs. It reported as fact that "She skipped an election". And all the available facts indicate that the P-I's report is untrue. But that's just my opinion. I guess I have higher standards and expectations for honest reporting and factual integrity than the P-I does.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 30, 2006 11:01 AM | Email ThisSince this is the new standard, then I FEEL I missed my 10am flight to Mars and should be entitled to a refund....nevermind that the flight never existed, I FEEL it should have and it's my stated belief that I was going to be on that flight. Why doesn't the PI write about how I feel NASA screwed me over on that one?
Obviously it's lame. Facts are facts, they're not influenced by feelings, no matter how heartfelt. If she wasn't in a district that had an election on May 16, then she couldn't skip a non-existant election.
Playing into the delusions of crazy people isn't a good thing.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on August 30, 2006 12:21 PMThat's a good point, RWW. In fact, it was the P-I's editorial that inspired me to actually check the facts of Lisa Oldham's registration. When the P-I publishes something as fact, I feel less confident that it is true than if I read the same fact elsewhere!
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 30, 2006 12:30 PMI took the raw data that Stephan posted and looked up the information myself. I read the statements/declarations/affadivits and then went to the Clark County website. All from home, took about a half hour to look into the details.
The confusion on the form was not a "simple typo" or "different spelling of the name".
1. Oldham filled out a voter registration form with her maiden name (Graham). For her drivers license, she uses her married name. She put in her SS number and that apparently refers to her maiden name. So who is she - Graham or Oldham? I'm not sure, but I don't think there is an automatic computer check for maiden/married names.
2. As noted, the precinct she lives in was NOT involved in ANY elections in May, so just how was she forced to sit out that election? If she suffered no real harm, how can she be a valid party to the lawsuit?
The other person mentioned had a closer issue with a typo in her birthday, but again, the precinct she lives in was NOT involved in ANY elections in May.
The PI's inability to perform simple fact-checking shows once again that, instead of being a government watchdog, they are more a political lapdog.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 30, 2006 01:32 PMAlso, ironically, when I looked up their addresses on the Clark County precinct finder website, neither address was found, though we know they do exist - just a strange coincidence.
watchdog, lapdog.
woof.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 30, 2006 01:35 PMI wouldn't line a bird cage with that waste of paper propaganda machine.
Posted by: pbj on August 30, 2006 07:22 PMSadly, I DID line my cage. Now, my bird wears a beret, watches Maury and has filed lawsuits for 'avian reparations' against every cat-owner I know. "My God--What have I done?!"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 31, 2006 10:14 AM