Once a TV show has been running for a while, producers sometimes get lazy and decide to phone in an episode in by putting together a bunch of clips from previous episodes.

Apparently that happens in journalism too. Instead of breaking new ground in examining the California high speed rail project, California Watch and the Orange County Register basically put together all the previously heard criticisms of the HSR project into a single article. There’s no original reporting here, no assessment of whether the criticisms hold merit. It’s a sadly typical example of the laziness that has come to define American journalism: assume the critics are right, get a few quotes from the target of the criticism, and basically take the side of the critics without actually doing any independent analysis of what is really going on here.

This blog exists to provide that independent analysis. And yet again we see an anti-HSR article failing to actually make its case:

But public records show that the state High-Speed Rail Authority, the agency spearheading the bullet train, is plunging forward despite repeated warnings that it may be tens of billions of dollars short of the money needed to build and operate the system.

“There is an air of unreality” about the project’s $45 billion construction budget, a panel of experts warned the state Legislature last year.

It’s a “big gamble” to start construction, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in May, saying financing was “highly uncertain.”

The project lacks “a disciplined business plan that makes any sense,” says state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. He fears Wall Street won’t invest anywhere near the $12 billion in private capital needed to build the system.

The problem is that nowhere in the article is it explained that the funding issue is that Republicans in the House of Representatives are ideologically opposed to HSR, and have temporarily seized control of the House and have blocked further HSR funding. Good journalism would not only explain that, but would also explain that President Barack Obama and Democrats who still have the majority in the Senate and who are leading the polls for House elections next year are strongly supportive of funding high speed rail.

As to private capital, we have known for three years now that private capital won’t show up until state and federal funding is assured. You don’t see that in this article either, presumably because the reporters didn’t actually bother to interview any potential private funders (which is, you know, what journalists are actually supposed to do).

The article makes specific points, which are repeats from other criticisms that have been made:

A financing gap: The appointed officials who make up the rail authority say they will rely on $19 billion in federal aid to pay for the 800-mile system. But the legislative analyst says federal funding may amount to less than $4 billion — a $15 billion shortfall.

This “shortfall” is the gap between what the federal government has already committed and what we need from the feds, and the gap exists solely because of House Republicans. The article does not mention this nor does it mention that Democrats in DC do support delivering this funding. The article makes this sound like the “shortfall” is a result of flawed planning when in fact it is the result of a political problem entirely outside the control of the California High Speed Rail Authority. This criticism is therefore without merit.

Ballooning costs: The rail authority’s $45 billion construction estimate may be $22 billion too low, the legislative analyst says. Cost overruns of the sort that have afflicted other big U.S. projects could drive the actual price above $200 billion, according to a critical study by a Stanford University professor.

Had the article’s authors actually done their homework, they would know that the LAO claim the cost estimate is low is entirely speculative and has no basis in any actual credible analysis. The $200 billion claim comes from a Stanford professor who is a declared opponent of the project who is motivated by NIMBY concerns. Similarly, his $200 billion cost claim is not backed by any actual evidence or analysis. It’s a totally speculative figure dreamed up by someone who has a very strong personal reason to make the project look bad. Any journalist with a passing knowledge of what Google is could discover this. But the article’s authors, not having done any actual research, instead pass the claim off as credible when it isn’t. So they fail here too.

Dubious projections: The bullet train’s prospects for turning big profits are founded on ridership forecasts that are deeply flawed, two studies claim. Rather than making billions in profits, high-speed rail might actually “incur significant revenue shortfalls,” a UC Berkeley study found.

The word “might” is a weasel word. Here again, had the authors actually done research, they would see that intercity passenger rail in
California is experiencing high ridership. More importantly, good journalists would ask “gee, I wonder what other countries’ experience with HSR has been” and they would find that not only has Japan been successful, but so has Russia, Spain, Taiwan and China, just to name a few. But they didn’t do research, so they have no clue about the context, and therefore they credulously pass off criticism as if it’s accurate.

If we had a press corps that actually knew how to do their jobs, we would be having a very different conversation about HSR. But because our press corps is lazy, HSR critics are able to basically make their points without being called to account for their flawed arguments. It’s sad not just for the HSR project, but for our democracy, which requires a better press corps in order to survive.