May 26, 2008 Front Page "News"?

Do you read the truth about government in the newspaper or just a front-page press release?

Is a professional reporter concerned when the financial facts of a front page hard news story may be wrong? Will a reporter who says he "stands by" his article and the audited figures in it show where his "audited" figures came from? Click on the "news" headline and excerpts at left.

The newspaper article, written by Bob Moore, quoted Trustee Bill Brittain and County Mayor David Purkey and provided and compared "audited" expenditure figures for 1997 and 2001.

The article states that the 1997 audited total for the general government, highway, garbage, and general debt was $14.1 million. A review of the audit shows that this total appears to be correct.

The article maintains that spending only went up slightly from 1997 to 2001 and that the 2001 audited total for the general government, highway, garbage, and general debt was $14.8 million. According to an auditor, a review of the audit shows that this total appears to be incorrect.

If you actually look at the 2001 audit, you will find that the expenditures for 2001 are not $14,800,000 as reported. Instead audited expenditures for 2001 are about $16,500,000 (see below). The "news" report somehow left off about $1,700,000 of county spending that is shown in the audit!

2001 AUDITED EXPENDITURES

General government fund $9,755,386 (p. 65)
General debt fund 4,048,765 (p. 85)
Highway fund 1,955,371 (p. 71)
Garbage fund 1,812,099 (p. 68)
-----------------
TOTAL OF 4 FUNDS $17,571,621
Less Tax Anticipation $ 1,000,000
Notes for General Fund
and Garbage Fund -----------------

2001 TOTAL AUDITED $16,571,621
EXPENDITURES

The audit shows approximately $16,500,000 in "audited" expenditures in 2001, but the front-page news article reported only $14,800,000 in 2001 "audited" expenditures.

Neither the County Mayor nor Trustee would ever respond to anyone's questions or offer an explanation for the $1,700,000 in spending that is in the audit but that is not in the "news" article. ($16,500,000 AUDIT - $14,800,000 NEWS REPORT)

Since no one would discuss the discrepancies, I called the reporter--Robert (Bobby) Moore--and told him that I had talked to an auditor and it appeared that $16,500,000 was spent in 2001. I then asked Bob if he could explain the $1,700,000 discrepancy in the newspaper report and the actual audit expenditure totals for 2001.

WARNING: If anyone else out there is considering calling Bob Moore to ask a question about an article he has written, be prepared to get nothing except a roundabout response which I paraphrase as follows: "I stand by my article, but, no, I will not answer any questions, I will not look at the actual audit, and I certainly will not tell you whether the figures in my article are really correct or not."

The conversation--paraphrased-- went more or less like this:

Noe: Bob, you reported that $14.8 million was spent (in 2001)...An auditor reviewed the audit with me and says that that is not the case...An auditor says that way more than $14.8 million was spent in 2001. Will you show me in the (2001) audit where $14.8 million was spent?
Moore: I know where it is...I'm not going to tell you...I'm not going to show you.

Noe: Why won't you show me what the expenditures were?
Moore: Because of your blog.

Noe: Bob, I have said either the Tribune was wrong OR they were given false figures. Now you say you know where it is. You know the real expenditures. Where is it (the expenditures that were not reported)?
Moore: I do know. I do know. But I'm not going to tell you. Linda, you don't have a clue. You don't have a clue about how to be a politician.

Bob Moore is a pretty savvy guy with numbers. He could look at the 2001 audit, find the expenditures for each of the four funds, and total them up in just a few minutes--just like the auditor did and just like I did. Because it would be an easy and quick review, I offered to bring him a copy of the 2001 audit. However, he absolutely refused to look at the 2001 audit to see if the figures he had been given and reported were true or not.

On the professional level, Bob Moore is a numbers guy and he writes front-page articles covering city and county government. He can write about whatever he (or his editor) chooses.

A professional reporter, writing a front-page news article that reaches thousands of people, should be willing to explain the facts and figures in his front-page article when asked instead of responding "I'm not going to tell you."

A front-page "news" article is serious business---especially during an election. How many people believed that "news" article and the "audited" figures in it?

Bob Moore says that he "stands by" his article AND the figures. Bob Moore says that he knows where the expenditures that were not reported are, but he can't reveal that information! Super secret and all that. Yeah, sure. It's more likely that Bob got duped and was given bogus figures and now he doesn't want to admit it.

Why can't he show where the figures came from for HIS article? Why won't he look at the 2001 audit and add up the expenditures in the four funds and see if they match what he reported? If he knew that way more than $14.8 million had been spent in 2001, why didn't he report the real amount that was spent and explain what was going on?

Bob loves to talk, but he doesn't want to talk about this article and the "audited" expenditures he reported.

I would like to know if he can (1) show in the audit where there is a total of $14.8 of expenditures in the four funds as he reported; if that doesn't work, (2) I would like for him to explain what he knows about the $1,700,000 of expenditures that are in the audit but that were left out of his report; if that doesn't work either, then (3) I would hope that Bob would simply acknowledge that he was given false figures, reported them, and is not concerned about the accuracy of this or other front-page articles/stories.

Bob makes it sound like he knew all along that 2001 audited expenditures were higher than the $14.8 million that he reported, but for some strange reason he can't or won't reveal why he didn't report the real expenditure total.

If he REALLY knew that way more than $14.8 million had been spent and even knew where it was, why did he write a front-page "news" report saying only $14.8 million had been spent in 2001?

[NOTE: Bob Moore would hate to hear this, but I was not offended and in fact took it as a compliment when he said that I didn't 'have a clue about how to be a politician.' News flash! I never intended or wanted to be a politician!]

We've got more than enough of them in government.