A Good Journalist Can Be a Bad Referee

My first wrestling show was Survivor Series 1991, Hulk Hogan’s Gravest Challenge against the Undertaker. I was 7 years old, and it was a bad night for the referees.

All night long, the bad guys would double team the good guy, but somehow the ref would miss it. When he should have been focused on the match, the ref would be off arguing with the good guy’s teammate.

Among the 18,000 souls in Joe Louis Arena that night, only the referee was paid and entrusted to keep things fair. And among those 18,000 souls, only the referee would miss it when the bad guys cheated.

On the way home, I asked my Uncle Jeff about the refs—why’d they miss so much stuff? What’s their deal? 

He wasn’t as worried about it as I was. 

Still, I needed answers. After Thanksgiving break, when school was back, I would consult with my friends who watched wrestling. I’m not even sure what I wanted—maybe just to know that someone else saw what I saw and felt what I felt.

I didn’t have the words for it then, but I expected more from the referees. That day, I became a critic of bad referees. It’s a passion that burns to this day.

Journalists are society’s referees. When I read their work, I am too often transported back to November 1991, to the cheap seats at the Joe, watching the bad guys cheat, and watching the refs miss it. 

How do people in Michigan feel about an open border policy, under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, that has allowed in millions of illegal immigrants?

I don’t know. And if you read the Detroit News, you don’t know either.

Polls are supposed to tell you what the public thinks. And that’s how the Detroit News presents its latest poll. It spread the message far and wide that its polling found that Michigan opposes mass deportations: That 70% oppose, 23.5% support, and another 6% don’t know.

But that’s not what the poll shows at all. I know this because the Detroit News itself told me.

News reporter Craig Mauger, who wrote the story on the poll, defended his write-up online. When people questioned the numbers from the story, Mauger defended their accuracy. Some people don’t like when reporters do this, but I think it’s essential. 

Worry about the reporter who doesn’t fight back when people trash his stories. 

Question 34 of the poll read: 

“Which position more accurately reflects your views:

1. We should secure our borders, and undocumented migrants who have committed no crimes should be given a pathway to citizenship over a period of years.

2. We should secure our borders, and undocumented migrants should be immediately deported regardless of how long they have been here, their family or their work status.

3. Depends/Don’t Know/Refused”

The poll calls them undocumented migrants rather than what they are—illegal immigrants. This is a pollster preferring political correctness over accuracy. Also, there are no illegal immigrants who have committed no crimes. This is dishonest.

Why didn’t the pollster ask the question accurately? Because if he had, the push poll would not have worked. And because the Detroit News published a push poll rather than a poll, we don’t know what our neighbors think. 

If the Detroit News took a poll asking every girl if they wanted a pink unicorn or a glitter unicorn, and never mentioned that neither exists, we would discount the poll. We should discount this poll for that same reason. 

Think about the referee who misses the bad guy using brass knuckles. If the referee was interviewed afterward, he could say honestly that he had refereed the match accurately.

If the best journalist in Lansing can’t spot a skewed poll, heaven help us. The Detroit News’s response to critics of the poll could be summed up as: My story, right or wrong. 

People laughed at my 7-year-old self. But it was fair then and it is fair now to expect more from your referees.

James David Dickson is host of the Enjoyer Podcast.