The continued slide into irrelevancy and disrepute

I agree. From WaPo's embarrassing indulgence in hyperbole describing the attendance at Democratic candidates rallies. by Ann Althouse.

For years we've seen gigantic crowds at Trump rallies downplayed in the mainstream press, and that's the baseline against which I judge "Iowa Democrats fill events to the rafters with 13 months left before the 2020 caucuses."

Even before reading the article, I'm thinking: 1. So everybody got into the room (no overflow room, no people left outside in the parking lot), 2. What size was the room (unless it was a big arena, what's the big deal about filling a room)? 3. Filling "to the rafters" is a metaphor, visualizing people piled on top of each other, but of course that didn't happen, so how densely packed was the room? 4. Of course, there's a fire code, so they couldn't pack a room all that much, 5. WaPo sounds silly saying "fill events to the rafters," when I think all they mean is that some people are showing up for events.

Now, I'll read the article.

There follows a stark fisking on language and numeracy grounds.

Ms. Althouse approaches this, as is her wont, from a language and reason perspective. My bias is towards the numbers side and feeds my long running plaint against journalists - that they tend to shy away from empirical measurement and demonstrate staggering levels of innumeracy.

In December, the liberal group Progress Iowa doubled the size of its annual meeting from four years ago, with 300 activists eager to participate....

300!

The throngs of voters bombarding events in Iowa are testament to something fearful for Republicans: The huge tide of Democratic voters who powered the party’s 2018 gains have not lost interest as attention turns to the 2020 presidential race....

"Throngs... bombarding... huge tide... powered..." — quite aside from what the facts are, this old-time adman language makes me so skeptical I would throw this away as trash if I weren't inspired to blog about it.

[Cory Booker's] visit included standing-room-only turnout at an event advertised as a discussion on agricultural issues and hosted in the Boone County Democratic offices.

Standing room only = he didn't fill the room to capacity. And what size was the room? We're deprived of the basic facts, and I assume the words that are chosen are the most flattering things WaPo can get away with without lying. So, to protect myself, I have to assume it was a small room. "The Boone County Democratic offices" — well, that does sound pretty small, and how many chairs would there be in a place like that. If you stop long enough to read critically, "standing-room-only" is entirely ho-hum.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that the Democratic Party might have gained momentum in Iowa. But I can't tell that from this reporting. This is just advocacy dressed up as journalism. I cannot discern reality from this report by Annie Linskey, David Weigel, and Chelsea Janes.

I often advise younger consultants and those learning critical thinking or critical reading to take any random article in a newspaper and strip out all adjectives from the report in order to begin approaching the facts. Just that one step normally changes what seems to be a compelling argument into either a thin, bland statement of something quite uncontroversial or a clearly ridiculous assertion. Next, remove all multi-syllable verbs and convert them to something plain.

Newspapers are in decline and journalists dramatically overwrite in order to get clicks. That simple dynamic causes much of what is reported to be materially misreported.

Once you have addressed the language issue, you still have the numbers issue. Yep, these are small potatoes and are not evidence of much of anything.

Finally there is the need for context. There are a couple of stabs at it such as "the liberal group Progress Iowa doubled the size of its annual meeting from four years ago." That's helpful. But I need more. When was Progress Iowa founded. I can't find that with a simple google search but I am finding that they recently held their fourth annual Corn Feed, possibly suggesting that they were only founded four years ago. A doubling in size from tiny to very small in four years suggests that the doubling in size from 150 to 300 might not be particularly indicative of rising enthusiasm.

All the meetings cited would not particularly raise eye-brows at a high school performance of Show Boat or an adult education class at a medium sized church. Give me context. What is the number of registered Democrats in 2019 compared to 2017 in Iowa? If there is rising enthusiasm, surely that would be reflected in those numbers.

Here are those numbers from Iowa Secretary of State website for the last three elections, one full election cycle of four years.

Click to enlarge.

Both Democrats are up 5% from four years ago and down somewhat from 2017. In all three elections, Republicans outnumber Democrats and in all three, those belonging to no party outnumber the total of all party members.

So maybe there isn't any rising tide of Democrats but perhaps those 31% of the population who are Democrats are more excited than they were? Perhaps they are more excited than Republicans?

All are possible scenarios. But we don't know and we can't know from the advocacy piece filed from Annie Linskey, David Weigel, and Chelsea Janes who imply that the Democratic Party fortunes in Iowa are on the rise but don't support that with hard numbers but prefer to paint and enthusiastic picture.

Tell me the facts and then tell me your opinion of those facts. Don't waste my time by omitting the facts and giving me only your opinion. Hence the continued slide into irrelevancy and disrepute.