Abdul Hakim-Shabazz and "Anonymous Facts"

Talk radio host and conservative blogger Abdul Hakim-Shabazz won an award from the Society of Professional Journalists recently. As fellow blogger Jon Easter of Indy Democrat points out, he has spent his time since winning the award personally attacking and spreading rumor of local lawyer Paul Ogden and reporting polls without citing a source. Specifically, he cites a poll taken that puts Mayor Greg Ballard's approval ratings countywide at a similar level of Governor Mitch Daniels statewide approval ratings. The source of the poll is, and I'm not kidding, "word has it."

He does not cite a source for approval ratings of either the Mayor of Indianapolis or the Governor of Indiana.

Easter goes on to talk about his reaction to a previously reported rumor that Shabazz has reported on concerning City-County Councilor Angela Mansfield (D) that relates to the proposed smoking ban. Shabazz reported that Mansfield was banned from the Living Room, a local establishment that allows smoking, due to Mansfield's support of the smoking ban proposal. Easter went on to make a blog post saying he wouldn't be frequenting the Living Room due to the ban. Mansfield later wrote to Easter saying Living Room staff told her that the rumor was false and they'd never stoop to a petty level to score political points. Apparently, Shabazz never checked with the Living Room management or councilor Mansfield to confirm or deny the rumor.

To be fair to Shabazz, he reported it as a rumor. However, when reporting something that can easily be verified, it should. It is very easy to establish if someone has been banned from an establishment. At least two groups of people would know. The staff of the establishment and the person that was banned.

But what Shabazz did this time around was more than just reporting a rumor. He cites a poll that that pushes his pro-Ballard view point, but doesn't source it. He's done this before too. He also reported on a poll that had Ballard polling at 50% approval among African-Americans, again without citing the poll.

Finally, after Daniels finally admitted his FSSA privatization failed, Shabazz cites a rumor that FSSA's privatization saved $145 million. If he had left it at that, then so be it. But he goes on to use it to score political points, saying that if it saved $145 million as a failure, then how great would success be? He made a similar statement on his radio show.

This is just not how someone reporting on facts uses anonymous sources. When you are reporting on ongoing criminal investigations, the sources one would use likely won't want their names printed. Shabazz did just that when reporting on the FBI's investigation into Lincoln Plowman, the (now) former City-County Councilor and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department cop. His reporting of it lined up with later reportings of the same event with a few minor details left out. Stories involving so-called whistle blowing or other types of corruption are also appropriate to use anonymous sources. But citing factual data or polls is not a case to use anonymous sources.

In a related note, a commentor on Indiana Barrister found something called the National Council of Public Polling (NCPP). The Principals of Disclosure list the basic requirements to be in compliance with NCPP:

Level 1 Disclosure: All reports of survey findings issued for public release by a member organization will include the following information:

• Sponsorship of the survey
• Fieldwork provider (if applicable)
• Dates of interviewing
• Sampling method employed (for example, random-digit dialed telephone sample, list-based telephone sample, area probability sample, probability mail sample, other probability sample, opt-in internet panel, non-probability convenience sample, use of any oversampling)
• Population that was sampled (for example, general population; registered voters; likely voters; or any specific population group defined by gender, race, age, occupation or any other characteristic)
• Size of the sample that serves as the primary basis of the survey report
• Size and description of the subsample, if the survey report relies primarily on less than the total sample
• Margin of sampling error (if a probability sample)
• Survey mode (for example, telephone/interviewer, telephone/automated, mail, internet, fax, e-mail)
• Complete wording and ordering of questions mentioned in or upon which the release is based
• Percentage results of all questions reported

Member organizations reporting results will endeavor to have print and broadcast media include the above items in their news stories.

Member organizations conducting privately commissioned surveys should make clear to their clients that the client has the right to maintain the confidentiality of survey findings. However, in the event the results of a privately commissioned poll are made public by the survey organization the above items should be disclosed.

In the event the results of a privately commissioned poll are made public by the client, the survey organization (a) shall make the information outlined above available to the public upon request and (b) shall have the responsibility to release the information above and other pertinent information necessary to put the client's release into the proper context if such a release has misrepresented the survey's findings.

And in a strongly worded press release from 2009 (click here for the full press release):

In the wake of a recent controversy over the work of one polling firm, the National Council on Public Polls today issued a new call for full disclosure by all pollsters whose work is part of the public debate.

“When polling firms release the results of a survey, the pollster is asking the public to believe the poll is accurate, credible and worthy of consideration,” said Evans Witt, NCPP President. “Releasing the key information about a poll allows the public to make that judgment based on the facts. Failure to release the information deprives the public of the essential facts it needs and opens the door to questions about the poll’s validity.”

Shabazz can present facts and polls, unsourced, all he wants. And it's his blog, he has the right to do so. But statical facts are cold, hard, and simple, and shouldn't need to be confidential in their sources. Especially in the case of polling, they should be sourced and the methodology should be revealed. Otherwise, the numbers might as well be made up. Their credibility, when unsourced, is about the same.

Traffic Court lawsuit: Abdul's blog

Apparently, I made the front page of Indiana Barrister today. I was even directly quoted. Well, kind of:

And before I forget, one of Ogden’s clients was fined $25 for not wearing a seat belt. The client says he didn’t want to challenge the ticket because he “heard about the court policy regrading additional fines.” Maybe the client should have made a call because he would have found that a seat belt violation is $25 regardless if you challenge it and there are no additional fines, unlike other traffic offenses.

Yeah, I wasn't fined "for not wearing a seat belt." As the complaint itself states (and as I have multiple times), I was fined for not wearing my seat belt properly. It was under my arm (but still going over my body).

In addition to that, Abdul wasn't the first one to suggest calling the court. Kim King of Fox 59 made the same suggestion. Well, I just called the court now to see what it is like now compared to several months ago. After selecting the 4 transfer options after the automated answer, I get a busy signal.

Also, the quote Abdul attributes to me is something I never said, and it isn't even a direct quote from the complaint. I guess one could make the case that it's a summary of line 33 in the complaint, but then you wouldn't put it in quotes.

And just to be super-certain, I even went back and re-watched the Fox 59 segment I was interviewed for. Nothing there either.

So, who did say that quote?

Homicide Rate: What's the real number?

Abdul-Hakim Shabazz tweeted that the murder rate is at 88. Bart Lies, one of the many websites created to throw out former Mayor Bart Peterson (and one of the few that is still up and running), has a different number.

Throughout the year, Bart Lies has kept track of each homicide that happens in this city. It has it at 92, with a full list of names for 2009 as well. He explains in this post that the homicide rate seems to get shortened by 4-5 each year. He says in the comments section that he doesn't specifically blame Mr. Shabazz, he just so happens to be the first to put the number out.

The reason these numbers are so important is because every single mayor says that public safety is #1. And this is something that average citizens can wrap their heads around. More importantly, it's something that politicians can't spin. The number is the number, no getting around that.

It's strange that even in the simple task of counting, two people can come up with different results.

Now would be a good time to remind readers (and myself) that homicide strictly refers to the act of one human taking the life of another. Homicide is not always illegal, and homicide and murder don't always go hand in hand. Justifiable homicide (self defense, for example) and a gang shooting a rival gang member (murder) both are different in the legality and what can/can't happen due to those acts. But both acts are still homicides.

Eventually, though, the media outlets will pick up the homicide rate, and they're far more likely to publish a source along with it. I'll update as needed.

EDIT: I misreported that Shabazz said homicide rate. After double checking, he did indeed use murder rate. My apologies. He also said his number came from Mayor Ballard's interview earlier today.

The Art of Polls (or you might as well make the numbers up)

Over at Indiana Barrister, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz posted some interesting poll results. He doesn't cite what the poll asks, what the numbers are, who did the poll, or anything like that. But still, even without silly stuff like a "source", it's still worth a read:

And speaking of polling, incumbent Greg Ballard is polling about 50-percent in the African-American community, a key constituency for Democrats.

I find that any Republican polling that high among African-Americans could very well be a sign of the Apocalypse.

Abdul has an extensive background in the news business, as well as politics. Any first year journalism or political science major can tell you how easily the poll itself can be manipulated in who you survey, the question asked, how the question is asked, answers to choose from, etc... And even the numbers themselves can be manipulated, such as when Mayor Ballard recently "tweeted" that Indianapolis was one of the top 40 safest cities, where really we're really #38/40 on the list of the 40 biggest cities in the US.

As I commented on Abdul's blog, if you're not going to bother to cite a source and examine it, you might as well make the numbers up. It has about the same level of credibility.

IMPD denied grant money for new officers: I hate it when I'm right

When Mayor Greg Ballard presented his budget to the City-County Council, one of the points he highlighted was that IMPD will be getting a budget increase, mainly to hire 50 new police officers. He said that federal money will be used to the tune of $11 million over three years. The budget also specified that another portion of it ($1.7 million) would be from a grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to cover cars, pagers, and various other costs.

Today, Fox 59 broke the story that the grant application was rejected:

Fox59 News has learned IMPD has been rejected for a $1.7 million dollar grant to buy 50 new police cars. And, it appears more advance discussion with Indiana Criminal Justice Institute officials about restrictions for equipment would have let city leaders learn months ago they never had a chance to get grant money for cars.

"The equipment grants we give out are typically for $10,000 or less," said Neil Moore, executive director of the Justice Institute. "If you look at what we funded in the past you will see we don't fund cars for large police agencies."

IMPD was requesting $1.3 million for cars. The total request was $1.7 million dollars. The money is needed to match Federal money the city's taking to cover salaries for 50 new police officers in 2010. By taking the federal money the city has to guarantee it can buy equipment for the new police and cover their salaries after three years.

"We were a little surprised, we were counting on it," said Valerie Washington, CFO for public safety.
[...]

Interestingly enough, I questioned these numbers sounded in the first place. The city-county budget, by cutting every department except for IMPD, ended up with a $15 million surplus. Now why Mayor Ballard and the CCC use that to fund IMPD, or the permanently increased County Optional Income Tax to do so, who knows?

In fact, two die-hard Ballard supporters had no problems with IMPD funding when the budget was proposed as seen here.

While I did misspeak and call it stimulus money, the fact is federal money is never a guarantee. Eventually, it'll be gone and the city should be able to stand on it's own two feet. We should at least be able to provide the necessities without federal assistance. Unfortunately, some of my conservative friends don't see it in the same light.

Yours truely gets trashed by gay rights activists...for supporting gay rights

Let me preface this by saying that, I know that when I get into the "comments" section of a blog, news site, etc..., I know the logic to lunatic ratio is going to be very heavy on one side. I tend to keep my comments to blogs with a fairly small audience as far as commentators go, with many of the same people using the same or similar screen names across numerous blogs.

Over at Indiana Barrister, I made a number of comments, advocating equal rights and specifically, a repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act due to an infringement on states' rights. In a discussion, I said DOMA and other laws restricting benefits and marriage are discriminating against "homosexuals."

And that set off a storm from a handful of liberal partisan hacks.

wilson46201:
Calling gays and lesbians "homosexuals" isn't going to help your cause or political organization amongst gays and lesbians. In fact, quite the opposite.

It's kinda like calling an African-American or Black a "Negro". Gays and lesbians have similarly rejected that word "homosexual" -- it's simply the current political reality.

Fact Checker:
Matt, Matt, Matt.....this is 2009....If you cannot use the accepted terminolgy, what other outdated ideas are you clinging to your breast? Should slavery be abolished? Should women be allowed to vote? Should we return to prohibition?

Ironically, Fact Checker has few concerns with facts if they can't be twisted to support his view.

Fortunately, one of the new non-partisan posters there came to my defense, saying that "homosexual" is a term that perfectly describes the discriminated people and is not judgmental. The same poster also pointed out how invalid a comparison the homosexual-Negro comparison is.

And even though that these comments came from the Internet, from two people hiding behind screen names, this type of behavior is not limited to the Internet. Partisan hacks on both sides want to dictate to their party members exactly what to say, how to say it, and how to act. And anything less than that is discouraged. Just look at Ed Coleman, who refused to toe the line for the Republicans that the Capitol Improvement Board was a-okay and needed more money. He left, and became a Libertarian.

And in the final irony, if Fact Checker or Wilson bothered to read my posts, they'd know that I'm in agreement with them. But to people like them, partisan politics and trashing "the other guy" is more important than anything else, including equal rights.