Margaret Wente on facts, figures and The Toronto Star

It would be nice if Margaret Wente did what she's obliged to do – that is, inform readers of the source of statistics used to reach her conclusions.   It seems particularly relevant to uphold accepted standards when you’re slagging other media outlets (like the Toronto Star) for claims “not supported by the facts”.

What facts support Ms. Wente when she writes, “Since 1981, Canadians’ real personal disposable income, per capita, has gone up nearly 50 per cent”?

In contrast, The Living Standards Report of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (2011) states:

“Between 1981 and 2010… real personal disposable income per capita rose 31.4 per cent”.  

Any growth has been unequally shared.  “Median market income per household declined 7.6 per cent, while median total income saw a moderate increase of 1.7 per cent…”

The report adds, “Since 1981, many dimensions of living standards have not improved, in spite of a 52.6 % surge in gross domestic product per capita….”

And since Ms. Wente’s overall argument is that compassion and income equality are doing well specifically under Mr. Harper’s watch, it would make more sense to look at figures since he came to office – rather than since 1981.   Table 9B here shows real disposable income in 1981 at $19,421.  In 2006, when the Conservatives formed a minority government, the number already stood at $24,006, so most of that increase occurred under previous administrations.  The figures stop at 2010, before the majority Conservative government began implementing expansive changes in legislation. 

What does appear to have risen since Conservatives achieved majority is household debt.  Given the barrage of reports (noting, for example, that “Canadians owe just over $1.63 for every $1 in disposable income they earn in a year”), it seems a bit unlikely that Canadians’ disposable income has increased as radically as Ms. Wente states - especially recently.  Even for one cherry-picked marker, 30 percent would be nowhere near the 50 at which she pegs it (and little to no increase would seem to be attributable to Mr. Harper’s “compassionate” governance)  Perhaps Ms. Wente has a different source of statistics for her "nearly 50 per cent" claim.  A polite request for supporting figures was sent to The Globe.  No response so far.

Update:  I’m glad to see that The Globe has now updated the claim with a link in the online version (though no source in the print version) to a graph by Stephen Gordon, showing figures to 2013 (though it doesn’t indicate the source of the original data).  Better, though questions remain.

In any case, it should be noted that a woman who, among other things, falsely  turned an unsuspecting student loan recipient (borrowed, without acknowledging her source, from an American blogger) into the “face” of the Occupy protests, presumes to lecture other media outlets about proper ethical practices.

The Globe and Mail falls off its “pedastal”

A story by Oliver Moore on page R14 of Saturday’s print edition of The Globe and Mail carries the headline “Off the bike, and the pedastal”.  Can’t find it with that headline anywhere online. 

To be fair, though, it was pointed out to me that the teensy, tiny cottage industry that is this blog used the (legitimate) variant “miniscule” rather than the more appropriate “minuscule” in a previous post.

“Pedastal” though, seems to be just a goof.

Margaret Wente’s “Big Wind”: another error?

In her latest column against sustainable energy, Margaret Wente writes that, “Big Wind is among the biggest lobbyists in Washington”. 

She provides nothing to support a claim that appears to be false.  Here’s a list of the 20 biggest lobbyists in Washington from the Center for Responsive Politics.  Topping it is the US Chamber of Commerce which spent $136 million on lobbying in 2012, followed by a variety of sectors like Real Estate, Pharmaceuticals, Blue Cross, Oil, and Communications.  “Big Wind” is nowhere “among the biggest lobbyists in Washington”.

The same body notes that, “Until 2008, AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) failed to crack the $1 million mark in annual lobbying expenditures -- and most years, it spent less than $500,000.”  

According to Business Pundit, which lists “10 of the biggest lobbies” in Washington, Tech (at “$120 million” - Google alone doled out $20 million for lobbying in 2012), Big Oil (“$150 million”), Agribusiness (“$150 million”), Financial (“hundreds of millions”), Big Pharma, Defense, Mining, and AARP all dwarf the pitiful lobbying dollars of wind power.  Even the NRA and the Pro Israel lobbies are larger.

In 2009, lobbying by the American Wind Energy Association did increase dramatically to $5 million and then dropped back down to about $2 million in recent years.  A report from January 2013 in the Washington Free Beacon confirms this, noting that,  “The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) spent more than $2.1 million in 2012, a 61 percent increase from the $1.5 million it spent the previous year.”

It’s not clear what Ms. Wente means by “Big Wind”. Aside from the industry organization, many individual wind energy companies’ lobbying expenses were so miniscule they fell below the threshold for reporting, but if she is referring to Nextera (which she mentions in her article), her claim is also incorrect. 

Nextera, formerly Florida Power and Light and now one of the largest providers of wind energy, spent about $5 million in lobbying last year.  But as wind makes up about half of the company’s power portfolio (the rest includes gas, nuclear, hydro, solar and others), it would be equally erroneous for Ms. Wente to claim that this company is the “Big Wind” lobby.   Half of $5 million is about equivalent to the amount spent by the American Wind Energy Association and is still dwarfed by any one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists in Washington who spend many, many times that amount.

Perhaps Ms. Wente meant to say that “Big Wind” or Nextera was one of the biggest electric utility lobbyists in Washington.  But this wouldn’t be true either.  It’s lobbying constituted only about one third of the nearly $16 million spent by the largest electric utilities last year, and if one subtracts the non-wind percentage of its holdings, it drops out of the top ten utility lobbyists altogether. 

By any measure, $2 million represents a tiny fraction of what the “biggest lobbyists in Washington” spent last year.  So unless Ms. Wente can provide sources and facts to support her claim, it should be corrected.  

As for her claim that Nextera paid no income tax, Ms. Wente omits to mention that there are dozens of other companies, like Verizon and Boeing, who, due to U.S. tax structure, are in a similar position.

In addition to a significant number of past plagiarism and attribution problems, Margaret Wente has engaged in previous misrepresentations of environmental issues, from nearly doubling the number of polar bears in Canada (to support her claim that they’re not at risk), to her claims about electric cars.  One might also ask whether, when writing about energy issues, it might be appropriate to disclose her longstanding position on the board of Energy Probe.

According to its wikipedia page, “Energy Probe is a non-governmental environmental policy organization based in Toronto and best known for its role in opposing nuclear power,[1][2][3] and as a free-market lobbyist for fossil fuels[4] and well-known Canadian proponent of climate change denial.”

Another Margaret Wente error…

…to add to the last column (and the growing list).

In yet another article on the 'death of men, Wente writes:  

“Male” jobs disappeared and, when men couldn’t find other “male” jobs, they gave up. Millions of men also went on disability, which has become a runaway welfare program for the American middle and working class. (In some months recently, more U.S. men have gone on disability than found work.) And the decline of men has closely tracked the rise of women.

Fox News:  More Americans went on disability than found jobs over the last three months, according to fresh figures crunched by the Senate Budget Committee. 

Despite the Republican ‘war on women’, last time we looked “Americans” meant both genders.  




In fact, if Wente had wanted to contribute something original to the countless other articles on this topic (or the long Rosin interview in last Saturday's Globe), she might have wondered if the that 'war on women' has anything to do with the gender job situation.  But that would have required some thought.  

In the meantime, perhaps The Globe could do their part to address the situation by hiring a young male editor for Margaret.

Correction please.

Margaret Wente’s sins

Not ‘original’ sins, mind you (Wente is rarely original).  In fact it is possible that her error today about Episcopalians, whom she describes as “the American equivalent of the United Church”, reflects the New York Times article which perhaps inspired her own version.  Ross Douhat’s earlier OpEd on the collapse of the liberal church (“Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?”) cites the same figures for Episcopalians.

Episcopalians are, of course the American version of Anglicans.  But what the heck – for Margaret’s purposes - a drive-by smear of the United Church - they'll do just as well.

Borrowing from the Times isn’t new for Wente, and errors related to sloppy attribution practices are common.   Best known was "John", but there are more examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.  And another just recently. 


Update, Error #2:  Wente writes that Mormonism “requires obligatory missionary service”.  “Missions are voluntary”, says its website.


Update #2:  While it took them a day or two (or three) an Editor's Note was finally appended to the online version of Wente's article: 


The Episcopalian Church in the United States is equivalent to the Anglican Church of Canada and not the United Church. Mormons are strongly encouraged, but not required to do mission work. An earlier online version of this story, and Saturday's original newspaper version, were not clear.


 In addition, it's worth noting the gracious 

response

 from Mardi Tindal of the United Church.