Let the experts explain D.C. voting
Members of a media panel speaking to a group of high school students at a Lamar University event last week had the chance to touch on the information overload that many people find themselves exposed to these days.
Various panelists tried, nicely, to address the difference between credible journalism and the present tendency among some less credible sources to circulate unsubstantiated information with impunity.
Basically, they were telling readers and viewers the same thing I have shared repeatedly — always, always, consider the source when you are seeking fair and accurate information.
Several of the panelists shared their frustration at being told that someone had “heard” a fact somewhere, or that they had read it on the Internet, so it had to be true. Again, I and my fellow media members caution you to not believe everything you hear or read.
A perfect example crossed my computer screen last week and, I think, is worth sharing.
A very frustrated reader e-mailed to complain about the weekly congressional voting record published in The Enterprise on Sunday, Sept. 20.
In that report, a syndicated column compiled by Thomas Voting Survey, we said that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas was not present for the Sept. 14 vote on a Senate amendment (Johanns 2355) which was to withhold Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) funding from the Housing and Urban Development budget.
The e-mail author was very upset with us because she had, independently, researched the subject and, in fact, included information from a Web site showing that Hutchison indeed had been present and had voted in favor of withholding the funds.
She was angry with us, felt our reporting was slanted and thought we should run both a correction and an apology to Hutchison and citizens of Texas.
Initially, the information the writer sent looked so complete and accurate that I was tempted to take her word for our error — but that’s not journalism. That’s part of the reason behind the saying, “trust, but verify” as it relates to journalism.
So, in spite of my trust, I set out to pursue the “verify” portion of that saying.
I ended up speaking to Rick Thomas of Thomas Voting Survey in Washington, D.C. He assured me that the information contained in the voting report we published on Sept. 20 was correct.
However, Hutchison DID vote in favor of a similar amendment on Sept. 17 (Johanns 2394), which involved withholding funding from the Department of the Interior budget.
According to Sen. Hutchison’s Web site, she missed the Sept. 14 vote because it was called shortly before 5:30 p.m. and she was at a scheduled event in Texas. She was monitoring the vote and was “aware that it would pass overwhelmingly, which it did by an 83-7 margin.”
When I spoke to Rick Thomas, he explained that the Senate and House probably conduct more than 1,000 roll call votes each year and that the voting report his organization prepares can only report on a few of those. The ones they report on are the ones they consider most newsworthy: in this case, the HUD amendment because it was the first of the votes withdrawing ACORN funding. He said a dozen or more similar amendments are expected.
Complete information about congressional votes, including archives dating back to 2006, is available from Thomas Voting Survey at this site.
Sen. Hutchison’s official Web site also directs citizens to a site that reports congressional voting, which includes votes even further in the past. The site features legislative information from the Library of Congress. Click on the roll call votes link, which also confirms the votes reported here.
As citizens, it’s important for all of us to keep up with what’s going on in Washington and in Austin, and to keep tabs on what our elected officials are doing. But it’s also important for us to get our information from trusted sources, whether that’s your daily newspaper, or official Web sites that might have more extensive details.
And, to the reader who wrote in, I applaud you for seeking an answer to an important question. We should all be so diligent, and so gracious in accepting clarification of our misperceptions.
Various panelists tried, nicely, to address the difference between credible journalism and the present tendency among some less credible sources to circulate unsubstantiated information with impunity.
Basically, they were telling readers and viewers the same thing I have shared repeatedly — always, always, consider the source when you are seeking fair and accurate information.
Several of the panelists shared their frustration at being told that someone had “heard” a fact somewhere, or that they had read it on the Internet, so it had to be true. Again, I and my fellow media members caution you to not believe everything you hear or read.
A perfect example crossed my computer screen last week and, I think, is worth sharing.
A very frustrated reader e-mailed to complain about the weekly congressional voting record published in The Enterprise on Sunday, Sept. 20.
In that report, a syndicated column compiled by Thomas Voting Survey, we said that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas was not present for the Sept. 14 vote on a Senate amendment (Johanns 2355) which was to withhold Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) funding from the Housing and Urban Development budget.
The e-mail author was very upset with us because she had, independently, researched the subject and, in fact, included information from a Web site showing that Hutchison indeed had been present and had voted in favor of withholding the funds.
She was angry with us, felt our reporting was slanted and thought we should run both a correction and an apology to Hutchison and citizens of Texas.
Initially, the information the writer sent looked so complete and accurate that I was tempted to take her word for our error — but that’s not journalism. That’s part of the reason behind the saying, “trust, but verify” as it relates to journalism.
So, in spite of my trust, I set out to pursue the “verify” portion of that saying.
I ended up speaking to Rick Thomas of Thomas Voting Survey in Washington, D.C. He assured me that the information contained in the voting report we published on Sept. 20 was correct.
However, Hutchison DID vote in favor of a similar amendment on Sept. 17 (Johanns 2394), which involved withholding funding from the Department of the Interior budget.
According to Sen. Hutchison’s Web site, she missed the Sept. 14 vote because it was called shortly before 5:30 p.m. and she was at a scheduled event in Texas. She was monitoring the vote and was “aware that it would pass overwhelmingly, which it did by an 83-7 margin.”
When I spoke to Rick Thomas, he explained that the Senate and House probably conduct more than 1,000 roll call votes each year and that the voting report his organization prepares can only report on a few of those. The ones they report on are the ones they consider most newsworthy: in this case, the HUD amendment because it was the first of the votes withdrawing ACORN funding. He said a dozen or more similar amendments are expected.
Complete information about congressional votes, including archives dating back to 2006, is available from Thomas Voting Survey at this site.
Sen. Hutchison’s official Web site also directs citizens to a site that reports congressional voting, which includes votes even further in the past. The site features legislative information from the Library of Congress. Click on the roll call votes link, which also confirms the votes reported here.
As citizens, it’s important for all of us to keep up with what’s going on in Washington and in Austin, and to keep tabs on what our elected officials are doing. But it’s also important for us to get our information from trusted sources, whether that’s your daily newspaper, or official Web sites that might have more extensive details.
And, to the reader who wrote in, I applaud you for seeking an answer to an important question. We should all be so diligent, and so gracious in accepting clarification of our misperceptions.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 5:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home