TIMES-NEWS BIAS, ERRORS PERVADE AIRPORT RUNWAY ARTICLE

Today's article in the Times-News by Reporter Tim Hahn on the award of a construction contract for a controversial runway extension at the Erie airport is typical of the sloppy, superficial, incomplete and biased reporting one has come to expect from the monopoly daily, which raises more questions than it answers.

To put the article in context, one needs to know that the Times Publishing Co. is rabidly in favor of the runway project as a matter of editorial policy, as it is of most expenditures of public funds, whether they're needed or not (although The Times is notoriously skinflintish when it comes to paying adequate salaries for competent reporting, editing and editorial management at its newspaper: ergo, its generally sub-standard journalism).

Consequently, any Times-News article on the runway project is predictably sharply slanted in its favor, even though there's significant opposition to it within the county, which is rarely or never mentioned in the Times-News coverage, such as Hahn's article.

According to the article, there were only two bids for the first of three phases of project construction whose total cost is estimated at about $80 1/2 Million. Evidencing a dire need for some grammar school tutoring, Hahn wrote: "The company's bid (for Phase One )was the lowest (sic) of two that airport officials received in May." (It was actually the "lower" of the two.)

Hahn said it was about $1.5 million lower than the airport authority's original estimate, or $10,620,000. (Elsewhere in the story, he says the lower bid added up to $10,519,500, indicating he needs some help with his math too). The only other bid was significantly higher than both, about $15,775,575.

Hahn's, and the newspaper's bias comes into play early in his lead paragraph. He writes: "Erie International Airport officials have officially found a BARGAIN (my emphasis) in the first phase of their $80.5 million runway-extension project."

There 's nothing in the story's factual presentation to indicate the contract is a "bargain." And even if there were, that's an opinion which belongs in an editorial, not in a news story, unless it's attributed to a knowledgeable outside source. Just because the low bid is lower than the authority's estimate and the only other bid, doesn't necessarily mean it's a bargain.

It's more likely an indication that the authority's project cost estimating competence is lacking and it simply over-estimated the cost of Phase One. Or it could indicate that the lower bidder deliberately underbid in order to position itself for advantageous bidding on the two subsequent project phases.

Alternatively, it could suggest a ploy common to construction contracting, which is to bid low deliberately to get the job, then when work is well underway, to come in with a change order needed to complete the project, materially raising the cost,leaving the authority with no option but to comply or litigate at an even higher cost.

In any case it's incumbent upon the reporter to determine WHY the low bid was so much lower than the other, as well as the authority's estimate. For starters, Hahn should have contacted the high bidder to inquire why there was such a disparity between the two bids.

Realistically, the low bidder's bid should have been higher because that contracter is from Ohio, and would have to move his equipment and workforce farther to the job site than the high bidder, which is located in Erie. That alone should raise a flag for any competent reporter, but Hahn ignored it.

Hahn quoted Airport Director Chris Rodgers as saying "that the first phase of construction is expected to result in 329 jobs and about $6.7 million in payroll paid out, all impacting the local economy."

In fact, neither Hahn nor Rodgers has any idea how many, if any, of the 329 jobs will go to Erie workers. Many if not most of them are likely jobs held by Ohioans who work for the Ohio contractor, and won't be available for local hire. But exaggerating the local job impact better serves the Times-News editorial bias.
__________________________________________________________________________

For more on the airport runway extension fiasco see my blog archive at Feb. 2, 2010.