What Passes For Journalism

The Democrat and Chronicle ran a story today headlined "Suburbs left with school deficits" (Here's a link to the online version).

From that headline, you'd probably think the D&C story was going to provide some objective evidence refuting County Executive Brooks' claim that increases in state aid to school districts would offset losses in Sales Tax revenue under the medicaid intercept plan. You'd be wrong!

The story starts with a brief account about the experience of the Schumachers and their worry that the Brooks plan may threaten music programs in the Penfield School District. Mrs. Schumacher is credited with this insight: "It's robbing Peter to pay Paul". The story goes on to quote several school officials who offer various self-serving criticisms of the plan. To show that the story has "balance", the report also contains a quote from the County Attorney in support of the plan (although its not clear why a County Budget official was not sought out for an explanation of the plan's effects).

The most amazing thing about the story to my mind was the inclusion of a chart labelled "F.A.I.R. Impact", outlining the "potential tax increases" needed by each district to cover the sales tax shortfall. As you would expect, the chart was prepared by an independent entity like the Center for Governmental Research .... er, ah, no, ... actually, it was supplied by the Monroe County School Boards Association (the group coordinating the lawsuit against the County).

No mention was made in the story of the views of independent or objective reviewers of the plan, like the Rochester Business Alliance, whose President called the Brooks plan "reasonable" or the afore-mentioned CGR which pronounced the plan "responsible".

What was the purpose of the story? Surely it was not to provide the public with information it could use to weigh the relative merits of the plan and its critic's views. I would call it a propaganda piece, but that would give the reporter credit. I think the reporter actually thought her story was a "real" news article. She was wrong.

Where were the editors? What's become of journalism?