The national government’s$ 30 million in subscriptions to Politico since 2015 was revealed last month, and it was criticized as a dubious use of taxpayer money. Numbers alone do not adequately account for the entire scope of this money wastage; it requires an examination of the job itself. Politico’s” media” is very weak.
Errorous Prepositions of the Article
The outlet published an article last week about claims made by House Republicans that lawmakers could save$ 88 billion in Medicaid savings over ten years by erasing waste and fraud. The technique was described as a “rosy Medicaid discounts plan” by the title, which added that it was “unfathomable how the numbers add up.” The Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) report on high-risk programs last week, which found that Medicaid received$ 31 billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2024, less than the$ 88 billion in annual savings that the House budget resolution envisages, serves as the foundation for its logic.
However, the GAO document also contained additional details that weren’t listed in the article. First, it made note of the condition Medicaid programs ‘ pandemic-era flexibilities, which contributed to the$ 31 billion in poor payment. Second, GAO specifically stated that” the improper payment rate is likely to rise” as those flexibilities expired. According to GAO, the improper payment rate for the fiscal year 2022 ( 14.6 % ) was nearly three times higher than the one for the fiscal year 2024 ( 14.9 % ). The amount of improper payments would likely exceed the$ 88 billion in Medicaid savings included in the House-passed budget, negating the article’s main thesis, if the improper payment rate were to return to that level.
I emailed Robert King, the writer in question, to inquire about these noticeable errors. King, who oversees Politico’s protection of Medicare and Medicaid, wrote in a jovial reply that” we updated the tale” to represent GAO’s expectation that the poor transaction rate would rise.
Visitors ‘ Right to Know Is Worried, But Protecting a Reporter’s Ego Is Worried About.
Politico simply revised the story, not the original. Republicans would need to get almost every dollar to achieve their savings target, according to the article’s authentic premise, which was changed to add language. And it made no disclosure to readers of any of this, omitting to mention that the tale had been updated, and even less that the idea had changed.
King’s was the most severe example of how we all make mistakes. The three files factors he omitted from the GAO review, which refuted his assertions, are contained in the exact same sentence as the$ 31 billion figure he used to support his post. For this reason, I posed the basic question to him: Had he read the GAO record before basing a narrative on it? He said he would not respond. In addition, a Politico official did not respond to numerous requests for comment, including one asking how like a poorly sourced article previously received approval for publication.
I can understand King’s situation, but Politico cannot genuinely claim to” shine ] a light on the work of the government” without using the same standards for itself. Politico may refer to a state agency’s rewriting or whitewashing of a statement as corruption if it were intended to protect a government official’s error. In this instance, Politico committed the fundamental sin of news: putting readers ‘ needs before the personalities of its staff, including any errors or omissions.
Perhaps the federal government should demand refunds of Politico’s expensive subscriptions because a publication that discusses “our commitment to transparency]and ] accountability demonstrated neither in this instance, to say nothing of the private sector subscribers to its Pro service. And a publication that claims to be able to sell memberships because “it makes]clients ] better at their work” might want to invest more time in training its staff members to become better at their work, starting with a 101 on literary integrity.
