Junior White House staffers singing the Workin' at the Car Wash Blues

The other day, I posted an example of good reporting based on solid quantification and numeracy.  I mentioned, in the context of a mass exodus of teachers from public schools:

Whereas NPR, Washington Post or New York Times will usually just quote people asserting that there is an exodus (and usually people from just one side of the issue), you actually want to show that there is an increased teacher turnover rate or that there is a survey metric that is a reliable leading indicator.  For example, if increasingly teachers say on surveys that they intend to leave the profession and that survey measure strongly correlates to an actual future increase in turnover, that is useful information.

Further, you want to give context.  It is not enough to say that there is a 15% turnover rate among teachers on an annual basis.  If you are arguing that there is a mass exodus, you have to show that 15% is meaningfully greater than in the recent past or long term averages.

These are numeracy hurdles which NPR, Washington Post, and the New York Times rarely clear.  They assert.  They use surveys of intent as actual outcomes.  When they do use data, it is out of context.  etc.

Here we are a couple of days later and Politico is offering an example of the bad reporting to which I alluded.  From Biden sees exodus of Black staffers and some frustration among those who remain by Daniel Lippman.  The subtitle is The White House is historically diverse. But there are concerns internally about a wave of departures and the current culture.

At least 21 Black staffers have left the White House since late last year or are planning to leave soon. Some of those who remain say it’s no wonder why: They describe a work environment with little support from their superiors and fewer chances for promotion.

The departures have been so pronounced that, according to one current and one former White House official, some Black aides have adopted a term for them: “Blaxit.”

OK.  I am prepared to believe that all of this is plausible.  Kamala Harris is notorious for her toxic workplace environment and high staff turnover.  Quite plausible that the same might be true in the White House as well.

But being plausible doesn't make it true.  There are actually three claims here.  

The White House is historically diverse.

Perhaps.  I'd like to see some definitions and numbers.   More diverse than under Obama?  Maybe.  Certainly Trump and Bush were notable for their colorblindness when it came to talent.  What were their diversity numbers?  

But the main Politico claim is that there is 

1. A black staffer exodus from the White House
2. A toxic workplace environment for black staffers

Again, plausible.  Where's the numbers? to paraphrase the old advertisement.  

"At least 21 Black staffers have left the White House since late last year or are planning to leave soon." is meaningless.  Have five left and sixteen are planning to leave?  Or vice versa?  It is an important difference because people are always threatening to do something and then don't do it because their bluff doesn't work.

And to some extent this sounds like run of the mill staff griping because they aren't recognized, just as with the protagonist in Jim Croce's Workin' at the Car Wash Blues.

Well, I had just got out from the county prison

Doin' ninety days for non-support

Tried to find me an executive position

But no matter how smooth I talked

They wouldn't listen to the fact that I was genius

The man say, "we got all that we can use"

 

Now I got them steadily depressin', low down mind messin'

Working at the car wash blues 

 

Well, I should be sittin' in an air conditioned office

In a swivel chair

Talkin' some trash to the secretaries

Sayin', "here, now mama, come on over here"

Instead, I'm stuck here rubbin' these fenders with a rag

And walkin' home in soggy old shoes 

 

With them steadily depressin', low down mind messin'

Workin' at the car wash blues 

 

You know a man of my ability

He should be smokin' on a big cigar

But 'til I get myself straight I guess I'll just have to wait

In my rubber suit rubbin' these cars 

 

Well, all I can do is to shake my head

You might not believe that it's true

For workin' at this end of Niagara Falls

Is an undiscovered Howard Hughes

So baby, don't expect to see me

With no double martini in any high brow society news 

 

'Cause I got them steadily depressin', low down mind messin'

Workin' at the car wash blues 

 

So baby, don't expect to see me

With no double martini in any high brow society news 

 

'Cause I got them steadily depressin', low down mind messin'

Workin' at the car wash blues

Yeah, I got them steadily depressin', low down mind messin'

Workin' at the car wash blues

Everyone can feel unappreciated in their work and I suspect political campaigns especially so.  You are there not for competence and achievement but because of loyalty.

To support their assertion that there is an actual exodus and that there is a possibly a toxic workplace environment in the White House, all Lippman needs to do is show 1) the actual black turnover rate and 2) the turnover rate for all other personnel.  

That turnover rate might be higher or lower than one might expect in a professional environment but unless the turnover rates are different, and to the disadvantage of black staffers, then there is no race issue.  Even if there is a higher black turnover rate, then there is further numerical work which would have to be done to show that there was avoidable unplanned turnover.  

Lippman doesn't do that.  We don't know the black turnover rate nor the turnover rates for other demographics.  The whole article rests on an easily demonstrated claim and Lippman never substantiates the claim.

Which makes him typical in the mainstream media but very dissatisfying for numerate readers.  There is no there there.

So why the article?  Most likely this is inside power politics.  Lippman knows one or more black staffers who are suffering the car wash blues and seeking to embarrass the White House into promoting them.  If that is what is going on, Lippman is both an ineffective journalist and deceitful about his power plays.

At the end of his article, we don't know if there is black staffer exodus, we don't know whether it is greater than that for other demographics and we don't know whether the turnover rate for any of them is greater than normally experienced.  Useless.