You can just see the scene from the Wizard of Oz, where the wizard says ‘Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'
When it comes to diverting attention from a scandal plagued home state, don't worry Senator Obama, USA Today has your back.
In a bizarre demonstration of spinning numbers with the sole purpose of getting people to look away from the recent Blagojevich scandal, John Fritze and others at USA Today took statistics from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Census Bureau, crunched them in the liberal media calculator, and decided they had proof that North Dakota is actually the most corrupt state in the nation.
According to the article, North Dakota has 8.3 public corruption convictions per 100,000 residents. Illinois only has 3.9.
The trick here was to use the phrase ‘per-capita basis' in the analysis. Using the logic presented here by Fritze and his colleagues, they have logically justified that North Dakota's 53 overwhelming public corruption convictions between 1998 and 2007 is solid proof that the state has more of a black eye when it comes to its government, than Illinois, which had a mere 502 convictions during the same period. Why? Because North Dakota is a more sparsely populated state.
Using USA Today's methodology, this means that if a double homicide were to occur in the tiny town of Bowbells, ND, with its population of 406, they would immediately become the murder capital of the US - news to which residents of Chicago would surely become quite relieved with only 400+ murders so far this year. After all, Chicago would only have about 15 murders per 100,000 residents, and Bowbells would have 493. Ridiculous, right?
The opening paragraph to the article is what helps to mislead the reader (emphasis mine):
Its largest city is legendary for machine-style politics and its elected leaders have been under investigation for years, but by one measure, Illinois is not even close to the nation's most-corrupt state.
The article then goes on to cite numbers that include unelected officials that have been convicted of corruption. Don't make a sweeping statement about elected officials and then proceed to analyze numbers involving unelected officials.
One thing for average government employees to break the law, quite another when the public trusts someone enough to elect them to office, only to have them violate that trust by failing to uphold and abide by the government and its laws.
From an article in U.S. News & World Report:
The Chicago Sun-Times once calculated that 79 Illinois elected officials were convicted on federal corruption charges between 1972 and 2006.
From that same report, corruption is so prevalent in Illinois at the highest level of government that:
Blagojevich is the fourth out of the state's past eight governors to be indicted on corruption charges.
That's four out of eight. Fifty percent. North Dakota it seems, doesn't have quite the same problem.
However, as the report correctly surmises, there is no real objective way of discerning whether or not Illinois is the most corrupt state. The real question is why, when the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is the number one news story of the day, would USA Today bother to try and shift the focus of corruption in other directions?
Photo Credit: AP
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
oooh... a little
December 12, 2008 - 00:44 ET by MidAmericaoooh... a little statisical sleight of hand here. This is a report about convictions not the amount of corruption that exists.
The only thing this report really says is that North Dakota is less forgiving of corruption. They will prosecute.
Chicago politicians are better at. . .
December 12, 2008 - 07:53 ET by WingletDriverburying the bodies.
Burying the bodies.....
December 12, 2008 - 10:03 ET by Prester John....but still getting their votes to count!
Sparsely Populated
December 12, 2008 - 09:09 ET by allanfNorth Dakota is sparsely populated: 636,000 people and 68,000 sq miles. It's largest industry is Goverment. There are 75,600 goverment employees.
Looking at corruption on a per capita basis is outrageous.
Yeah, what kind of crap is
December 12, 2008 - 09:30 ET by BDYeah, what kind of crap is this?
As a native North Dakotan I can tell you that it is the most HONEST state I have ever come into contact with. If USA today were to take the story to the next level and investigate the supposed level of corruption in the state they would discover that North Dakotans are much less tolerant of corruption than any other state.
Virtually everyone knows everyone else (The state majority leader was my high school Social studies instructor in the 70's) and EVERYONE knows there the bodies are buried. And EVERYONE frags those who traffic in corruption.
I have lived in many other states since I left in the 80's and can say that all the other states I have lived in can only dream about being as honest in government as ND.
I was thinking the same
December 12, 2008 - 09:47 ET by fitzfongI was thinking the same thing. They base their conclusions on per capita conviction rate. Is that really credible? Maybe North Dakota has better prosecutors or smarter juries...leading to a higher percentage of convictions. Are plea bargains factored into the mix in the convictions column? If not, the horse trading that countless politicians like Spitzer and McGreevey have done (and Blagojevich will inevitably do)...playing their resignations as trump cards to avoid prison...would certainly wipe out any weak attempts to make any Red State appear most corrupt. If you want a real indication of which States are most corrupt, review which Governors are demanding Federal bailout money...Schwarzenegger, Corzine, Paterson, Granville, Blagojevich, Strickland, Rendell...
And the Unions have no influence over those States, do they? Oh.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Fitz: The nature of the
December 12, 2008 - 10:18 ET by BDFitz:
The nature of the offense is what is wrong with the story. Five of the ND Convictions were for a group of educators at a school district who lied on their travel vouchers.
This hardly compares with the nature of Illinois, Louisiana, or New York Politics.
The amazing thing is that these cases were brought in the first place.
It is amazing that these
December 12, 2008 - 11:08 ET by fitzfongIt is amazing that these cases were brought. That said, even Red States are populated with a few Ronnie Earles.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
what they still fail to tell you
December 12, 2008 - 19:19 ET by UndercoverConservative....is that the majority of the North Dakota convictions are still Democrats.
On the plus side, I've proven that the most unsafe cities for crime are ones with prisons in them! That gives each of them the highest possible number of convicted criminals...if you assume that "convictions" equals the crime.
Me, I'd worry about the states that have very few convictions. How many have been convicted here in CA? That tells you where the real problems are.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
Clemens was right
December 12, 2008 - 00:53 ET by SpaceManSpiffThree words
Lies, Dang Lies, and Statistics.
Per-Capita Basis?
December 12, 2008 - 01:04 ET by CobraMan"but by one measure"
Got to love that modifier
That "one measure" doesn't reflect the actual rates of corruption occurring in the various levels of any State or City Government, but, instead, spreads it out throughout the total population, as if every single person in the State hold some type of public office! Talk about spin doctoring!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Arrested Governors
December 12, 2008 - 01:42 ET by Two DogsWhat a real reporter would do is check the true stats. There have been FIVE of the last NINE Illinois governors arrested. What's even more fun is to look at the differences in the parties. The last Democrat governor of Illinois to NOT get arrested was Adlai Stevenson II, who left office in 1953. Since that time, FOUR of FOUR Democrat governors have been arrested, while at the same time, ONE of FIVE Republicans have.
What I am saying saying is that while Illinois is very, very corrupt on the whole, it is ONLY one Party that overwhelmingly proves it. Democrats get arrested at a rate 80% HIGHER than Republicans. Well in the one catagory of Illinois Governors.
FOUR of FOUR Democrat governors
December 12, 2008 - 01:56 ET by JerSince [1953], FOUR of FOUR Democrat governors have been arrested...
And you probably thought adherence to tradition was just a conservative value.
Jer
And...
December 12, 2008 - 07:53 ET by AJBAnd these stupid people continue to vote for the dems... wow.
no they don't vote for them
December 12, 2008 - 19:23 ET by UndercoverConservativethe political machinations keep them elected. "activists" gathering votes, by getting "inactive" voters "involved" got Obama into his Senate seat too. Voter fraud is a nationwide punchline for Chicago. I doubt the will of the people has anything to do with who's in office. However, they do manage to have colleges full of manilpulatable students working on their alcohol tolerance to vote the way the machine wants-mostly kids who are only residents for a year or two before they run back home.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the s
I'm sure that many of us
December 12, 2008 - 04:42 ET by RR GOPI'm sure that many of us were hoping that Obama would lose the election not only because he's pompous, a Marxist, probably sympathetic to terrorists, cares more what Europeans and American Left wingers think than Americans all across the spectrum do about many things, is incompetent and a danger to our country, but we were also hoping to see the demise of the Left Wing media.
The birth certificate thing hasn't panned out as of yet, nor may it ever, but this just might do it.
The media has tied themselves to the star of Barack Obama, pure and simple. If he goes down, they will, too. They have already lost credibility with many Americans judging by TV ratings and subscriptions.
So, this is another chance to watch the media crash and burn, and hopefully, profit motivation will dictate that either their new owners or current owners will fire these Leftist editors and others like them and get some real journalists on their staffs that can actually report the news without injecting their political ideologies regardless of what they are.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Did you see...
December 12, 2008 - 07:56 ET by AJBMurdoch wants to buy the NYTimes? Wow, a glimmer of hope that the bastion of deceipt and lies masquerading as truth will finally have the brakes put on its unbridled deceptions.
How would USA Today "Crunch" These Numbers?
December 12, 2008 - 07:13 ET by RovinA good friend of mine on another site posted this yesterday:
Some Election Stats
Quite an eye opener. . . . ..
Some unreported stats about the 2008 election:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
- Number of States won by Parties: Democrats - 20; Republicans - 30
- Square miles of land won by Parties: Democrats - 580,000; Republicans - 2,427,000
- Population of the counties won by Parties: Democrats - 127 million; Republicans - 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Parties: Democrats - 13.2; Republicans - 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. Keemo on December 11, 2008
(sorry, I don't have a link to support these facts, but I have no reason to believe they are untrue. If I find the source later, I will post it.)
Rovin
fact check...
December 12, 2008 - 08:01 ET by AJBsee http://www.snopes.co...
Olson didn't do the research... interesting article on it at Snopes.com
I don't understand
December 12, 2008 - 11:08 ET by CobraManI don't ubnderstand your post. You claim that Olsen didn't do the reaserch, and then give us a link about snoop trying to refute the "resuilts"(losses and gains) of the 2000 election, not the 2008 election.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Very interesting
December 12, 2008 - 12:33 ET by RovinAJB,
Thanks for the link and this does allow some clarification, however I find it interesting the Snopes went to the "trouble" to reframe the murder rate formula to come up with their own conflictive figures.
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
While it appears that the original post was not attributed to the proper authors, I believe the principal in the above is applicable in the face of what's transpired in the past few months with our government, (and yes, the Bush administration) basically nationalizing our financial institutions and soon our auto industries. The more the government continues to "invest" in private industry, the more dependent we "the people" become to some one in Washington---where the heart of corruption begins. Show me a government program that could survive in the private sector. Simple answer is they can't. The bureaucratic system swallows any profit structure.
I fear that if the Democratic Party, (and Mr. Obama), erect even 50% of the new entitlements, (and any government funded program), disguised as a stimulas, will only advance our dependency on the power structure in Washington and the representatives we elected. It not a "slippery-slope", it's a recipe for disaster. Capitalism and the free market principals that forged this great nation has taken a giant step backwards.
Rovin
On any street corner...
December 12, 2008 - 07:33 ET by AJBIn New York, you can watch the hustlers with the three cups or three cards asking you to figure out which one the ball is under, or which card is the Queen. USA Today is no better than the common street hustler, trying to confuse the easy marks who read USA Today... where's the corruption? Its not under cup #1... now watch the cups carefully... where did it go? Shift the old focus and PRESTO... no more problems for their Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama HUSSEIN.
Thank you
December 12, 2008 - 07:52 ET by EurikaThis article left me puzzled yesterday, thank you for clearing it up and providing facts.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." -Samuel Adams
Well Mr. John Fritze . . .
December 12, 2008 - 08:18 ET by clifcrdsI am from North Dakota and around here we have an old saying that fits you and your feeble attempt to whitewash any connection of your Messiah from any wrongdoing in this mess . . . "You can claim that figures don't lie BUT I can also claim that liars can figure."
Clinton's Military Philosophy - Tanks In Waco OK . . . Tanks In Mogadishu NOT OK
If I recall correctly,
December 12, 2008 - 08:42 ET by WorriedIf I recall correctly, during the campaign when it was pointed out that Sarah Palin governed the largest state in the country, the liberals said it didn't matter because there were so few residents. Since that was such a long, long time ago, USA Today figures they can now use that same formula for North Dakota and the Obamabots will have something to use in their argument when defending the empty suit they all love and adore. Obama is a product of the Chicago Machine and tainted like the rest of them. I actually believe Fitzgerald stopped the investigation when he was getting too close to BHO. Wouldn't you love to listen to everything on the BlagoGate tapes?
Yep
December 12, 2008 - 09:09 ET by 10ksnookerN Dakota, who? Where? Is this a State?
I am sticking with the crime family HQ.
Official Corruption
December 12, 2008 - 09:12 ET by jaywlJust like the infamous speed trap city of Ludowici, Ga of old, people avoid North Dakota like the plague. Hardly anyone drives through that corruption capital of the World. The evildoers there are so blatant about being associated with places like Chicago they even named a highway across the length of the state, believe it or not, US2!!
Olbermann did something
December 12, 2008 - 09:50 ET by GregEOlbermann did something similar Wednesday night. He ran off a top 20 (maybe it was 30) list of most financially corrupt politicians in history, with a brief on what each did that put him into the category.
Gotta make sure we put Blago in perspective. We wouldn't want to convict him to harshly ya know. After all, there were some 150 years ago that were more corrupt, so make sure we point this out. Stupid.
Yet somehow I imagine he
December 12, 2008 - 10:02 ET by fitzfongYet somehow I imagine he found a way to shoehorn Dick Cheney into the top spot.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
USA Today is just out to
December 12, 2008 - 09:57 ET by kgUSA Today is just out to "prove" to the public that a state that is more conservative is more corrupt by twisting the facts into something irrelevant.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
USA Today "And the Answer is!"
December 12, 2008 - 10:53 ET by NorthCoasterUSA Today is in the tank for Obama so it has to re-direct attention to North Dakota and away from Illinois. Whether or not there is a direct link between Blagojevich and Obama and the indightments, there are political and personal connections that go back for years. This is another example of the tainted associations of the President Elect. If anyone has noticed, after a delay, Obama has distanced himself from another friend or acquaintance(Blagojevich). At this rate, there soon won't be anyone but Barack, the kids and Michelle in his circle of friends.
USA Today is ridiculously biased...
December 13, 2008 - 18:34 ET by Georgia GirlI'm feeling better and better about us cancelling our USA Today subscription. We did that the day after Obama was elected. We didn't even do it to make any particular political statement on the election -- my husband and I just couldn't stomach the thought of a totally slanted view of Obama for the next four years. We had enough of that paper trying to get him elected and just weren't up for it anymore.
When even the front page coverage becomes so biased and slanted (it's supposed be be hardline, factual news, not the editorial page!), it is a journalistic waste. It became downright laughable how obvious it was that USA Today buried any "good news" for Bush or the conservative cause in any regard (while dragging any tiny bit of bad news right up to the front of the line), while constantly and actively promoting the Left side of things -- in words and pictures. I'm not big on the media telling me how to think. That's not journalism anymore -- it is more like propoganda.
Looking back on it, I actually feel badly that we kept the USA Today subscription as long as we did; I certainly don't want to be guilty of the same thing I don't care for in Obama -- which is looking the other way when it's convenient. So although USA Today is a quick and easy read, in hindsight, cancelling the subscription was a good stand to take, even if we didn't think of it that way at the time.
I also found out that we were not alone in being sick and tired USA Today actively promoting Obama. The subscription guy that my husband spoke with (the day after the presidential election) actually told him they were getting "lots of calls cancelling the paper." Who knows, but we felt like we weren't totally alone in being frustrated by a warped media world, which was of some comfort. I guess other people also felt you really shouldn't be able to tell who a newspaper's staff is rooting for in a political election.
For anybody out there who is feeling the same way when they get their daily paper, let me tell you how refreshing it is to not be faced with it every day. I highly recommend it! You really can (easily) get the news someplace else; it truly did nothing to keep us informed...and I didn't realize what a bummer it was until I am now free of it!