A somewhat-daily collection of usually short shots pointing out obvious bias, ignorance, and/or lack of expected follow-up by traditional media outlets.
______________________________________________
The August 13 ACT test-score story by Justin Pope of the Associated Press, with its misleading headline (”ACT scores down, but more students college-ready”), papered over two other points of interest beyond the Michigan jaw-dropper I noted yesterday.
The first is in this chart:

ACT, Inc. celebrated the fact that so many more took its test, and that more tested as college-ready. But only 11.44% of the additional test takers tested as college-ready in all four subject areas (English, math, reading, and science). That’s pretty weak.
As noted yesterday, a large part of the reason is that the additional test-taking occurred in states and some individual school districts where the ACT became mandatory in 2008. What the test mandate is revealing is a shocking level of incompetence on the part of those who are not college-bound (not that the performance of the college-bound is anything to get excited about).
The actual “Totals Who Tested as College-Ready in All Four Subjects” figures were not available in ACT, Inc.’s 30-plus page report for either 2008 or 2007 (that seems like a more than minor oversight). Since the college-readiness percentages presented in ACT’s report were rounded to the nearest whole percentage, I thought it important to get the actual numbers who tested college-ready in each year to see if the arbitrary rounding made the results appear better or worse than they really were.
To do that, I picked up Alexander Graham Bell’s invention and got the actual numbers from Scott in ACT’s Media Relations Department. I appreciate Scott’s callback, and his provision of that data. Justin Pope and others at AP, who get paid to report for a living and whose employer pays for long-distance calls, should consider employing this technique every once in a while.
______________________________________________
Yours truly found the second biggie that the AP’s Justin Pope missed in ACT’s 2008 national report.
It’s this “boys are really smarter than girls” engine starter on Page 13 of the full report:

The percentage of males who tested as college-ready in all four subjects (i.e., needing no remedial help) was 37% higher (7 points higher divided by 19) than that of females. Relatively small female advantages in English and reading were blown away by much larger male advantages in math and science.
These stats could keep Joanne Jacobs posting non-stop for a week. :–>
Seriously, though, how many readers expected to see this result? Justin Pope could even have reported this gem without having to pick up the phone.
Yet in 2007, according to this Christian Science Monitor article, “women account(ed) for nearly 58 percent of the 16.6 million college students. In three years (by 2010), the ratio is projected to be around 60 to 40.”
Anyone care to explain this? More fundamentally, why doesn’t anyone care to report this in real time when the result is right there?
_______________________________________________
Matt Sheffield of NewsBusters put up a great Washington Times column yesterday (”How Traditional Media Lose Audience to the Web”).
Money quote:
Instead of reporting the news, far too many journalists have now taken it upon themselves to protect the public from it.
Based on how the John Edwards situation has gone down, who can dispute this?
_______________________________________________
Speaking of Edwards, Old Media and Democratic party vet (but I repeat myself) Walter Shapiro at Salon, in his “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” column, confesses to having been duped.
Walter, Walter — you had seven months after the original revelations to change your assessment and didn’t. You just wanted to believe, and it blinded you.
Shapiro hasn’t changed a bit:
….. in 2000, no writer captured the arrogant megalomania of Dick Cheney or envisioned that Joe Lieberman’s hawkishness would eventually lead him right out of the Democratic Party.
Zheesh — Some of us remember that in 2000, those two gentlemen had a sit-down vice-presidential debate that was more civil and thoughtful than any of the three Bush v. Misbehaving Gore extravaganzas. You could make a case that Cheney and Lieberman were more qualified to be at the top of the ticket that year (Cheney over Bush on experience, Lieberman over Gore by a mile on temperament).
Cheney and Lieberman appear to have changed very little in eight years, but the traditional media treatment of them has created false templates that Shapiro can’t or won’t break through. He’s still blinded by his bias, and has learned nothing from being taken in by Edwards. Traditional Media types who migrate to the web aren’t going to get back their audiences with blindness, and blind bias, like Shapiro’s.