Newspaper strives to arm readers with current, precise information

By LINDA P. CAMPBELL

lcampbell@star-telegram.com

Sometimes, people let their frustrations run away with them.

Next thing you know, they’re jumping to conclusions and impugning motives — when the reality is much more benign.

"The largest impediment to civil discussion appears to be the paucity of facts," a reader e-mailed last week.

"The Star-Telegram could help by attempting to publish the correct facts," he continued, and you could hear the grump in his words.

He was unhappy that, in reporting about a new healthcare proposal unveiled by Sen. Max Baucus, we had put an estimated cost of $774 billion over 10 years in a front-page summary and an estimate of $856 billion over 10 years on page 4A.

"Why is the lower figure on the front page? Is this a calculation that less-observant folks might think, 'Oh great, that’s way down from $990 billion,’ and go their merry ways? Please pardon me if this was an unreasonable question."

Well, of course it isn’t unreasonable for readers to expect accuracy and consistency.

We don’t always succeed at both those goals, but they are our goals. Sometimes we don’t succeed because we simply make mistakes. But other times we are dealing with fluid information that continues to evolve as we scramble to meet deadlines. Unless I missed the memo, there aren’t hidden agendas or intentional obfuscation at work.

But readers don’t want excuses; they want explanations.

So, not being part of the news-side operation, I asked John Gravois, the Star-Telegram’s assistant managing editor for government/politics, whether he could explain a discrepancy that probably bothered — and agitated — other readers.

Here’s what Gravois wrote to my unhappy e-mailer:

"Your question indeed is quite reasonable. How can the cost of the Baucus healthcare bill be $774 billion and $856 billion?

"The answer is that both numbers are 'correct facts,’ and it’s perfectly understandable that many Americans will find that confusing and confounding, as is the case with much of what comes out of Congress.

"Let me explain:

In the days leading up to Sen. Baucus wrapping up his plan and making his announcement, Baucus told reporters he expected that the 10-year cost of his bill would come in around $880 billion.

On [Sept. 16], before Baucus held his news conference, his Senate staff drew up a fact sheet that estimated the cost actually would be $856 billion. All of the graphics and many of the news stories done by the national and international media used that $856 billion figure.

Several hours AFTER Baucus’ news conference, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office completed and released its analysis of the bill and concluded that the actual estimated cost should be $774 billion. That’s the number you saw on [Sept. 17’s] front page, correctly attributed to the Congressional Budget Office.  . . .

"The upshot: The effort was to get the latest and most accurate numbers we could on page 1, and we succeeded on that front. Where we fumbled the ball is not getting the updated $774 billion figure in the graphic and in the Associated Press story on page 4A.

"I cannot tell you whether Baucus’ staff will ever change that $856 billion number on their fact sheets — and even if they do, the original fact sheet will forever have that number on it — so there’s a pretty good chance that you’ll still occasionally see that number used in news stories and columns. And please keep in mind that there now are five different proposals on the table, and the numbers we’re discussing involve only one of them. I wish I could simplify things, but that’s way beyond my control. I can tell you that we’ll do our best to keep it as straight and consistent as we can.

"We appreciate you challenging us to straighten this out.  . . . Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly anytime you want an explanation of coverage, or to hold our feet to the fire when you feel we’ve dropped the ball."

The reader subsequently apologized for the "rant" and was glad someone was listening to his complaint.

I applaud my colleague for thoroughly laying out what happened. The suspicions of skeptics and conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, we want to arm readers with the most current and precise facts available.

Information is our business, and credibility is our biggest asset. We do the best we can with the tools we have each day — and then we’ll do it all again tomorrow.

Linda P. Campbell is a Star-Telegram editorial writer. 817-390-7867

Looking for comments?