Reading the Charlotte Sun Newspaper

Clearly, the stadium wasn’t running fast enough.

That’s the print edition. Here’s the e-edition.

Millions missing in embezzlement mystery

The story says $1.6 million and change is gone. That’s a singular million, not a plural millions.

Worse, the story carries no report of embezzlement. A bookkeeper is named by a principal in the story, and her Facebook page is discussed at length. However, no charges had been filed against her, and why and how the money disappeared remained a mystery. Old Word Wolf doesn’t know how a copy desk editor can predict embezzlement, but she smells a potential libel suit should the story unfold along other lines.

Two short bits before the larger story:
Bit Number One: Skimming through John Lawhorne’s front page feature this morning about the effect development has on bird watching (news flash: development is not good for birds), Old Word Wolf happened on his unattributed assertion, “The good news for birders is that, for the time being, Southwest Florida still can be considered one of the premier birding areas in the country, if not the world.”

A Google search of “premier birding areas” turns up Sierra Vista and Tuscon, Ariz., Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina, the Rio Grande Valley; Blaine, Birch Bay and Semiahmoo, Wash., Cheraw Reservoir in Colorado, a dozen places in Montana, Lodi Lake, San Francisco Bay and Santa Cruz, Calif., several spots in Wisconsin, Acadia National Park, Maine, Merritt Island, Fla., Cape May, N.J., Lake Alice, N.Y. – you get the idea.

“Premier birding area” is an empty, overused phrase that a naive reporter has culled from his reading. He thought it sounded nice and decided to share.

And, before we get to that serious headline, there’s one more giggle:

Near the close, Lawhorne innocently reports, “Birding requires a minimum of affordable equipment to get started. All you need is a pair of binoculars and a field guide to the local bird fauna and you are ready to head for the outdoors.” Ahem. Lawhorne’s birder is ready for the “naturist camp” they’re trying to build in DeSoto County.

But there’s much more that is deeply troubling about this story. Lawhorne was recently caught using Wikipedia as an unattributed source (the practice is called plagiarism everywhere except the Charlotte Sun) for a rock band story, of all things. So OWW decided to check the data he used to report the size and scope of the bird watching industry: Lawhorne: “The FWS noted that Americans spend an estimated $18.1 billion a year to watch wildlife.”

A key-word search produced this archived news release from the U.S. Department of the Interior dated May 12, 1995: Bird Migration Thrills Millions, Boosts Economy, but Loss of Habitat Threatens Popular Species and a Rapidly Growing Industry. Along about the second page, this paragraph appears:

“In a study released by the Service, “The Economic Contribution of Bird and Waterfowl Recreation in the United States during 1991,” indicates that, of the estimated $18.1 billion Americans spend annually to watch wildlife, $5.2 billion is spent on bird watching, using the most conservative economic assumptions. That figure could run as high an $9 billion, according to the report’s author, Rob Southwick of Southwick Associates. Using conservative assumptions, the number of jobs supported by bird watching is 200,000, according to the study.”

Without telling, Lawhorne feeds readers a 13-year-old press release whose information is based on a study published four years prior to that. And, he misrepresents the information. Here’s how he does it.

Lawhorne: “About 200,000 jobs nationally are supported by birdwatching. The FWS noted that Americans spend an estimated $18.1 billion a year to watch wildlife.”

Any editor worth his paycheck would notice that “wildlife” is not restricted to birds. Lawhorne’s own source attributes less than a third of that amount (about $5.2 billion)to bird watching. But Lawhorne doesn’t tell readers this, and neither does he tell readers that the job data is 17 years old.

The government press release goes on to report, “All indications are the bird-watching and -feeding hobby is growing fast. The number of specialty stores selling wild birdseed, feeders, and equipment has exploded in recent years …”

And Lawhorne dutifully copies: “According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all indications are that the bird watching and feeding hobby is growing fast. The number of specialty stores selling wild birdseed, feeders and equipment has grown dramatically in recent years.”

Lawhorne, the copyist, is unable to supply what any wide-awake editor would ask for: What numbers constitute dramatic growth? He can’t because his 1995 press release about the 1991 data doesn’t say.

In addition, Lawhorne is unable to report what the 2008 economic downturn, which has shuttered thousands of small specialty shops, has done to his claim of dramatic growth in recent years – that is, almost 20 years ago. For example, Wild Bird Center Inc., a retail-store franchise operation that targets the bird watching and feeding hobbyist, has declined from “more than 100” retail outlets five years ago to about 80 today, according to OWW’s historical review of the firm’s press releases.

Why is OWW picking on John Lawhorne? For one thing, she likes her news reporters to be accurate, fair, and honest. Today’s big-play feature and its author are none of these. Lawhorne is thumbing his nose at his readers, his editors, his publisher, and the profession of journalism.

Mention the numbers “90210″ and most adults will recall the hit FOX TV series “Beverly Hills 90210.” But it’s likely those same people would draw a blank if asked what the numbers 5-2-1-0 stand for. — Brooky Brown, Venice Gondolier.

Silly 1: “most adults” to most adults — and to journalists who care about accurate, precise reporting — means a majority of grownups. Pardon me, but I’m skeptical. And even if I’m wrong, I’d like to know what survey Brooky took to arrive at this sweeping generalization.

Silly 2: The second sentence is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. It has no logical, emotional, social, geographical, biological, economic or philosophical relationship to the prior sentence. Whether people remember a television show with a number in its title is unrelated to whether they know what 5-2-1-0 stands for.

Silly 3: The numbers are not in the same format, which might have passed for a semblence of semblence. One number is five digits attached to a geographical location. The other is four digits separated by dashes attached to nothing.

Please, whenever an irrelevant pop-culture reference, served up with a sweeping generalization, appears in your copy, use the delete key before you use the send key. Readers want news, not the frazzled associations of a TV junkie.

One assumes Charlotte Sun’s newsroom is equipped with an atlas and it has a page or two devoted to Florida. That good book may even be somewhere near the copy desk, where those fact-driven, accuracy fiends called copy editors regularly thumb the pages to check on stuff, like where Pensacola is.

Oh? You say that page was ripped out years ago, and now the best you can do is guess where Pensacola is? Well, then, no free beer for us, because the Charlotte Sun map man points us 250 miles east of where that fair city was last reckoned.

Sun Staff Writer John Lawhorne — the man who brought the art of the agenda-rewrite to new lows — landed on the cover of the local entertainment insert today. A rock band, 38 Special, is due to hit town next week. So Lawhorne hit Wikipedia.

Most of the last two legs of type, readers will note, sound very like the entry posted in that repository of all modern knowledge.

Here’s the comparison. Newspaper first. Wikepedia second:

John Lawhorne: In the early 1980s, the band began incorporating elements of blues-rock and arena rock into their sound. A string of successful albums and singles followed.
Wikipedia: By the early 1980s, the band began incorporating elements of blues-rock and arena rock into their sound, kicking off a string of successful albums and singles.

John Lawhorne: Best-known songs by the group include “Caught Up in You” (1982) and “If I’d been The One” (1983). Both songs hit number one on the Billboard magazine’s album rock chart.
Wikipedia: Among 38 Special’s best-known songs are “Caught Up in You” (1982) and “If I’d Been the One” (1983), both of which hit #1 on Billboard magazine’s album rock chart.

John Lawhorne: “Second Chance” (1989) became number one on Billboard’s adult contemporary chart. It was sung by Max Carl, now a member of Grand Funk Railroad.
Wikipedia: “Second Chance” (1989), a #1 hit on Billboard’s adult contemporary chart, and sung by former member Max Carl who is now a member of Grand Funk Railroad.

Lawhorne retains the wording of most of his source material — Wikipedia. He breaks up a couple of long Wiki-sentences into two shorter sentences, but retains the exact order of clauses and ideas. The sentences appear just as they do here — in order, with no breaks. That’s a big chunk of someone else’s writing to put your byline on, John.

Oh, he does move one Wikipedia paragraph higher up in his own story.

Lawhorne: The current band lineup includes co-lead singer and guitarist Barnes, co-lead singer and rhythm guitarist Van Zant, guitarist Danny Chauncey, bassist Larry Junstrom, keyboardist Bobby Caps, and drummer Gary Moffatt.
Wikipedia: The current lineup consists of co-lead singer Don Barnes, rhythm guitarist and co-lead singer Donnie Van Zant, guitarist Danny Chauncey, bassist Larry Junstrom, keyboardist Bobby Caps, and drummer Gary Moffatt.

Gerald A. Rogovin, the Venice Gondolier Correspondent, whose boss is Sun Coast Media Group publisher David Dunn-Rankin, and who plagiarized the New York Times earlier this month (scroll down to the Oct. 2 posting) today writes about the proposed Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution.

In this morning’s story, Rogovin appears to misrepresent both Florida Tax Watch’s and Florida Wildlife Federation’s published positions on the amendment, and he fails to identify any sources for his assertions about any information in the story. We can see why Rogovin has plagiarized in the past: when he can’t rely on someone else’s research, the guy simply can’t get the job done.

Here’s the evidence, graf by graf.

Amendment 4 on the Nov. 4 ballot is causing some concerns, even among environmentalists who have overwhelmingly supported it. Readers should not expect quotes or interviews with any environmentalist who once overwhelmingly supported the amendment and now has some concerns. There will be no quotes or names to support this assertion.

The proposal calls for permanent tax relief for permanent conservation easements and temporary tax benefits for shorter-term conservation land uses.

Could an owner get a tax break, then develop the land when the real estate slump ends? Do not expect the answer to this question from any expert or voice of authority. There will be none.

The question has many environmentalists vexed. They recall past abuses of tax incentives. One early proponent, Florida Tax Watch, now wonders if the ballot question has been oversimplified. Readers, do not anticipate a graf or two about which vexed environmentalist Rogovin interviewed. There will be none. Likewise, do not look for a brief recap of which “past abuses of tax incentives” that these vexed environmentals recall.

Note that Florida Tax Watch is not an environmental group, vexed or otherwise. And, as an abstract entity, is unable to “wonder” anything.

More important, Rogovin completely misrepresents the organization’s published position on the amendment. In fact, according to its Web site and recent news release, Florida Tax Watch endorses Amendment 4 and makes no mention, that OWW can find, of “wondering” if it has been “oversimplified,” whatever that means.

There are two parts to Amendment 4. The first would eliminate all property taxes on land with conservation attributes set aside in perpetuity. The second would reduce such taxes for a shorter period of time. Property appraisers would have to establish a value on a parcel based on “character of use,” not its full potential. Quotation marks tell readers somebody said it or that source material is being quoted. No source is identified for this quotation, and none will be. Since Rogovin has made stuff up before and seems to be doing it again today, readers are justified in being wary of this quote, as well.

Large landowners would get a big advantage, in the opinion of Florida Tax Watch. Do not expect an actual person who arrived at the opinion to be interviewed for this story. There will be none. Since large landowners usually get large tax breaks (the volume and scale of “large” …), what’s the point, except that Rogovin seems to be making stuff up, again. If he isn’t, he is required by all the tenets of journalism to tell readers where he learned this.

Taxpayers, especially those in rural counties, would take a big hit because of the potential to remove millions of dollars from the tax rolls. Sez who?

It would be up to the state Legislature to determine how long land would have to be preserved to qualify for the shorter-term reduction.

A coalition of environmental groups advocates a minimum of 10 years. It also wants landowners to submit a plan annually that identifies wildlife habitat and water resources on their properties. Do not expect to learn the names of the advocating coalition of environmental groups. None will be identified.

And if any landowner withdraws from an agreement, the coalition wants it fined. The coalition again – but who exactly is speaking for this unnamed coalition? Is the coalition one or a hundred environmental groups?

Most of the land that would be transferred to the new program is already getting a tax break under an agricultural exemption, according to the Florida Wildlife Federation, one of the earliest proponents of the amendment. Oh, maybe FWF is one of the formerly-but-now-vexed overwhelmingly supportive coalition members. Nope. The organization has supported Amendment 4 and continues to do so. But, readers will never know this, because Rogovin doesn’t get it: assertions must be supported. Otherwise, readers have every right to accuse him of just making it up as he goes along.

Approval by 60 percent of the voters is necessary to pass the amendment.

The Saddest Part: Rogovin will get a paycheck signed by David Dunn-Rankin for this.

Ignore the bad head and go straight to the Staff Writer’s first two sentences: Tonight the Arcadia City Council will give a first reading to an ordinance regulating temporary sales of motor vehicle. The ordinance is to specifies regulations applicable to temporary sales of motor vehicles because of the impact on surrounding land uses.

It’s not the typos that dismay (but see below, anyway). It’s not the prepared agenda decked out with a “staff writer” byline that appalls. It’s not the legalese copied straight from the government e-mail that makes us sigh, or even the writer-induced syntactical chaos. It’s not even the issue — which has generated what passes for controversy in these parts — presented without attribution, without a comment from anyone affected, and without evidence of research or background.

What makes me sad is people who don’t learn from their mistakes. Two weeks ago, John Lawhorne wrote about a proposed ordinance and erroneously called it an ordinance. The newspaper ran a nice correction, pointing out a proposed or draft ordinance isn’t an ordinance until the powers that be vote, count the votes and find a majority in favor.

Here we go again. It’s too much trouble to type the word “proposed.” Who cares? Not DeSoto Sun editors and staff stenographers.

A few weeks back, the Charlotte Sun’s head headline writer spelled the Nutmeg State with three t’s, tacking the superfluous one on the end: Connecticutt. Old Word Wolf turned the page without comment. It had been blog policy that typos wouldn’t be a source of finger pointing. Since then, unfortunately, things have been going so very wrong in the spelling department that it would be a dereliction of duty to continue that policy.

In other copy desk news …

The annoying lede — “leaf-peeping” — and the pronoun error in the fourth graf — “it’s” instead of “its” — weren’t enough to spike a lame fall foliage feature. Nooo. The Sun runs it twice. It was the top story in the Northern Report roundup yesterday. Today, it’s all the news New Hampshire could produce. It’s not even remotely possible that the local copy desk checked the math of a reporter who thought asking how many leaves fell in the Granite State constitutes journalism. Checking the math would require … well, professionalism.

The AP reporter figures it this way: “The result: 1,400 pounds of leaves per acre … times 2.5 million acres [equals] 1.9 million tons. At a tenth of an ounce per leaf, that’s 609 billion leaves in New Hampshire.”

Actually, it isn’t. 1,400 pounds of leaves per acre multiplied by 2.5 million acres equals 3,650,000,000 pounds of leaves.
10 leaves per ounce amounts to 160 leaves per pound. (I’m skeptical of this figure, but we’ll go with it for now.)
160 leaves per pound multiplied by 3,650,000,000 pounds equals 584,000,000,000 leaves.

LETTER SUBMISSION POLICY: … Letters will be edited for length as well as grammar and spelling.

Editor:
The Arcadia Golf Course is really in bad shape. Most of the greens have bear stops, the fairways need fertilizing, there are brown and bare spots, fire ant hills are everywhere, fairway and rough, needs treated for fire ants.

And against all recommendations ….
by the Associated Press Stylebook, Merriam Webster’s 11th, and New World: “Slightly cooler temperatures have been forecasted …”