Omissions, lack of context distort news articles

A NEWS STORY in The Virginian-Pilot on March 12 illustrates how information can be correct and yet simultaneously misleading, or, in the eyes of some critics, just plain wrong.

The opening sentence of Richard Quinn's story about the financing of an expansion project proposed in Virginia Beach is, in fact, correct: "The newest tower at Town Center could cost taxpayers $30 million."

Yet Steve Herbert, the city's chief development officer, insists, "That is absolutely not true." Quinn counters, "I beg to differ." In fact, Quinn's lead sentence is true - but important caveats are missing.

There were differing perceptions about the accuracy of that 11-word sentence. It's one of two recent reminders, contained in reader feedback, of the need for larger context on issues.

Quinn's opening sentence is a loosely accurate portrayal of the facts. Herbert and Quinn differ on the need to explain precisely just who will pay for what and how much. Taken by itself, Quinn's opening sentence leaves the impression that Virginia Beach taxpayers would have to ante up $30 million for the 21-story office building proposed by the developer, Armada Hoffler. That impression is inaccurate on several counts.

It is not the building itself but rather a variety of ancillary projects at the new Town Center structure that will cost $30 million in Virginia Beach tax dollars. Yet Herbert explains that only $5 million to $8 million will be borne by average Virginia Beach taxpayers, those whose property taxes go into the general fund. The rest will be financed with tax revenues paid by Armada Hoffler and other taxpayers in the 238-acre Town Center "tax increment financing" district.

That mechanism divides Town Center real estate taxes into two revenue streams. The first is generated by taxes on assessed value of the property before improvements - money that goes into the general fund. The second stream comes from taxes paid on the assessed value of improvements, money the city uses to reduce the debt taken on to finance the kind of facilities that developments like Town Center require - parking garages and street improvements, for example.

In Herbert's mind, the distinction is critical. For Quinn, however, "public money is public money," regardless of its origins and uses. Besides, says Quinn, "there's only a certain amount of background you can do in every story," a reference to the information needed to explain how the city uses TIF money.

The overall impression that a story leaves with readers is what should count. Although the distinction between the two revenue sources has been made before, a clearer understanding was needed here.

A more egregious example of a story that misled readers by failing to provide context was published Feb. 17. That article was on a survey conducted by Norfolk Tea Party 2, a vocal group of anti-tax advocates.

Harry Minium's story about that survey, which purported to measure approval ratings of Norfolk's city leaders, endowed the results with undeserved credibility. Moreover, the presentation gave additional weight to a survey that really added up to little more than a pile of feathers. Photos of city leaders accompanied the text, and his or her individual score was run in an eye-catching-type size.

The story did characterize the survey as "unscientific" - both in the opening sentence and the headline. But that hardly alerted most readers to how meaningless the survey results were.

What followed suggested that the survey represented citywide sentiment. The first paragraph noted that the city manager, mayor and most City Council members got poor reviews, an observation followed by a quote from a civic leader who said the survey "found a lot of anger and discontent in the community." The "community," however, was hardly represented in the 1,000 questionnaires that were returned by the 10,000 city residents who received them. Norfolk's population is roughly 241,000.

Quoting Brian Smith, the head of Tea Party 2, who said, "I feel like we took the pulse of the city," gave the survey additional heft - even though he's untrained in survey research.

Glen Sussman, a political scientist at Old Dominion University whose specialty is American politics, said the 10 percent return rate made the survey both invalid and unreliable. "You want a 60 percent response rate in order to attach significance to the results," he explained.

The most critical ingredient in any survey, added Sussman, is a representative sample. In this case, it should include all parts of the city. Because the story provided no indication of how the survey was distributed, there was no basis on which to judge that.

And because 35 percent of the responses came from one ward in the city, Sussman said, it further underscores how worthless these results are. That return - from Councilman W. Randy Wright's ward - Sussman said, further demonstrates that "this survey was blatantly off the mark."

Clearly, any suggestion that the Tea Party 2 survey had merit was a disservice to readers. Minium disagrees. He said the results reflected "a deep angst" among citizens about their government. "Taken in that context, it would have been irresponsible for us to ignore the survey."

I disagree. Given its imperfections, the survey hardly warranted the space it was given and probably did not warrant any space at all.

Joyce Hoffmann is the public editor. Reach her at (757) 446-2475 or public.editor@pilotonline.com.