THE AP (1/19/06): The Abramoff investigation threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials. Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.Quite correctly, Josh attacks the highlighted statements. Indeed, he says that these statements appear to be willful distortions, or statements with omissions so great as to be meant to confuse. That is an exceptionally harsh judgment—but its quite hard to say that its wrong.
With the midterm elections 10 months away, Democrats have tried to link Abramoff to Republicans, the main recipients of his largesse.
To Joshs judgment, well add one observation. The first of these two highlighted statements isnt even coherently written. What exactly does it mean? Will the investigation ensnare at least six members of Congress—some of whom will be from each party? Or will it ensnare at least six Dems—and at least six Republicans too? Fournier is a highly-regarded, professional writer. What explains his incoherence? Why cant the AP even produce a sentence which parses when it discusses this matter?
Beyond that, we ask a question about Joshs post. When will Dems and liberals find a way to tell the larger story involved here? For eight years, we have asked—and asked; and asked—for explanations of the press corps bizarre reporting of certain major Democrats. This goes back to our years-long critique of the reporting of Campaign 2000—a remarkable topic, but one which major liberals and Democrats have simply refused to discuss.
For forty years, the public has heard concerted claims about the press corps alleged liberal bias. This tale has been outmoded for decades, but for reasons only they can explain, Democrats and career liberal writers have massively failed to explain this fact to the public in an organized way. Today, Josh presents an outstanding post—but this post is part of a much longer story, a story he has refused to discuss. The public keeps hearing about liberal bias—a story conservatives love to tell. But we liberals keep refusing to tell them the actual story—a story which goes back to the puzzling coverage of Clinton, and to the lunatic coverage of Gore.
Something we were withholding made us weak, Frost wrote, describing the pre-revolution colonists. (Until we found out that it was ourselves/We were withholding from our land of living.) But then, so too for us modern liberals. This morning, Josh calls that AP report bizarre. But the press corps work has been bizarre for more than a decade—and for some reason, writers like Josh have refused to discuss this large story. The public keeps hearing the phony story—and we keep withholding the truth.
For writers like Josh, its time to flesh out todays excellent post. Its time to tell the fuller story. And yes, its time to acknowledge the fact that our liberal journals failed to speak up in real time about the trashing of Clinton and Gore. That historical failure to speak aint a sin, but we simply have to tell the public the full truth of their countrys recent history. That bizarre AP piece is a tiny part of a much longer, remarkable story. Josh is right on target—today. But how long will we make ourselves weak by withholding the full, bizarre tale?
Note: It would be unfair to single out Josh because he wrote yesterdays excellent post. When do we plan to start telling the public this larger, bizarre and remarkable story? We also ask Kevin Drum; Mike Tomasky; Paul Glastris; Duncan Black; Arianna; Katrina vanden Heuvel; and we ask Peter Beinart. Until we tell this larger story, the public will remain in the dark—just where theyve been for the past dozen years as this tale, so bizarre, went untold.
The public keeps hearing about liberal bias. When do we bother to tell them the truth? When do we stop withholding ourselves and tell them their own recent history?
Special report—How to read literacy!
PART 4—SURVEY SAYS: What did we learn from the 2003 NAAL (National Assessment of Adult Literacy)? It isnt real clear that we learned all that much. Adult literacy was largely unchanged from the time of the previous survey (1992). Yes, there were changes here and there—and in general, the drift was up among adults who grew up speaking English (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/12/06). But in candor, there was no obvious major story in the surveys complex data—unless we decide to get upset by that drop in college graduate scores.
And thats what happened when Lois Romano reported this story for the Post. Romano turned to some literacy experts, who did the things modern experts do best. Instantly, the experts began to misstate the data—and they began to recite simple tales. Oh, how the human mind does adore its familiar and group-approved stories:
ROMANO (12/25/05): "It's appalling—it's really astounding," said Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association and a librarian at California State University at Fresno. "Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainder."What fools we college graduates be! Later, Gorman expresses his shock at how dumb and unlettered these college kids turn out to be:
ROMANO: Gorman said that he has been shocked by how few entering freshmen understand how to use a basic library system, or enjoy reading for pleasure. "There is a failure in the core values of education," he said. "They're told to go to college in order to get a better job—and that's okay. But the real task is to produce educated people."Should Gorman be shocked by those Fresno State freshmen? For us, theres no real way to say. But one thing is perfectly clear: Few things are ever quite so much fun as railing against the youth of today. Soon, another expert gets involved in this familiar recitation:
ROMANO: Dolores Perin, a reading expert at Columbia University Teachers College, said that her work has indicated that the issue may start at the high school level. "There is a tremendous literacy problem among high school graduates that is not talked about," said Perin, who has been sitting in on high school classes as part of a teaching project. "It's a little bit depressing. The colleges are left holding the bag, trying to teach students who have challenges.In fairness, we cant know exactly what these experts said in their interviews; we only get to read their statements as theyre transcribed (and selected) by Romano. But in these screaming-mimi passages, we do get to read a treasured group story. Its astounding that so few college grads can read and extrapolate from a tough book. Its shocking to se how few college freshmen like to read for pleasure (or know how to use the libe). Its depressing to see that our high school grads have such a tremendous literacy problem. Indeed, as we work ourselves into a lather, we get to say the loopiest things. Theres a tremendous literacy problem out there—one that no one is talking about! Youd have to be on Mars to think that—or be in thrall to a pleasing group tale.
In fact, everyone talks about this alleged problem, whether its real or imagined. The problem is, we tend to discuss it rather foolishly. For example, is it really astounding when we see that only about 36 percent of college grads were able to pass the NAAL in 2003? (Yes, roughly 36 percent. Even as he rails against the kids of today, Gorman misstates the basic data. But then, he also misstates what the NAAL measures—no complex books are involved.) For ourselves, were not sure why this should be so astounding. Back in 1992, after all, only 45 percent of grads passed this test, and in the eleven years that passed, the slice of the population with college degrees widened fairly substantially (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/19/06). Meanwhile, just how shocking should it be when any college grad flunks this test? To state the obvious, that depends on how hard the test is, something Romanos various experts make no attempt to assess. But guess what? As a group, WE college grads arent geniuses, as anyone can learn from reading newspapers or from watching the news on TV. (John Stossel—and his bosses—are college grads, and just take a look at the steaming mess they threw on the air just last week!) Lets be unkind: What does it say for college grads when Gorman himself is surprised by these data? Presumably, Gorman is a grad—and a literacy expert besides. But in this passage, he basically declares himself astounded to learn that the grass is green. Meanwhile, his depressed colleague, Perin, does seem to be reporting from Mars. Despite her status as an expert, she seems to think theres a literacy problem among high school grads which no one is talking about. Meanwhile, Perins work has indicated that the issue may start at the high school level, Romano reports. That construction is Romanos, not Perins. But its utterly fatuous quality helps us see the foolish way issues like this tend to get discussed—yes, get discussed by college graduates, who then discuss their utter amazement at the failures of other such creatures.
Why did average performance drop among college graduates on this survey? There are many possible explanations. Among college grads, performance may have dropped because there are more college grads. It may have dropped because of affirmative action. And who knows? Imaginably, it may even have dropped because the population is aging. (Dont ask.) In short, many factors may be involved in that drop in average scores. But given the way these issues get discussed, one pleasing story will always appear when we try to explain such data. These kids today cant read a lick, well be told—even as experts display their own reading problems by misstating elementary data.
People love that simple story. Indeed—in closing, lets engage in a thought experiment. In the future, average scores may drop among college grads because the population is aging. Can we fail to see what may occur when we test more and more college graduates who happen to be in their 80s or 90s? But if that happens, we can be sure of one thing. Thundering experts will quickly emerge, blaming the troubling change in the scores on the dumb kids-of-today.
Is there a literacy problem among high school graduates? Presumably yes (depending on how one defines this), but then, what else is new? And nothing in this survey says that this problem is somehow growing, the impression one will likely get from reading Romanos report. Why did scores drop? Its quite hard to say; Commissioner Schneider has called for more study. Well second that motion, and see Schneider one: As we continue to study these matters, well call for an end to these pleasingly simple—and simple-minded—preferred expert tales.
ONE NOTE ABOUT SCHOOL SYSTEMS: On a related note, how can we judge the performance of schools and school systems? In our view, this survey helps us see one way we probably shouldnt judge such orgs. Overall, adult literacy (in English) stayed the same from 1992 to 2003—despite the fact that a larger chunk of the population didnt grow up speaking English. Translation: Among adults who did grow up speaking English, literacy had been (somewhat) on the rise.
It isnt obvious why that is, but at least the drift is positive. But similar interpretive problems present when we try to judge school systems. Its often noted that American schools have made little progress in reading in the years since the NAEP began. (Measured progress has been greater in math.) But in fairness: To what extent is this affected by the growth in the number of kids who are English learners—kids who didnt grow up speaking English? We dont know the answer to that—the answer will differ from system to system—but we rarely see the question asked when such trends in reading scores are noted. In our view, if reading scores stay the same (or slightly improve) while we see a growth in non-English speakers, the schools are actually doing better. In some circumstance or other, it might be worth pointing that out.
At any rate, what lesson can we take from the NAAL? Heres one: Its hard to explain such complex collections of data! As we have noted, Romano quotes her experts saying that there is no obvious or definitive explanation for the drop in college grad scores. But you almost never find obvious or definitive explanations when youre handed complex data like these. Many factors may be involved in the changes in data on a survey like this. All too often, experts ignore this obvious fact—and recite simple stories instead.
TOMORROW: Who knows? We may even post an Einstein-made-easy update!