This Seattle Times article by Emily Heffter highlights best practices by a political journalist this cycle. It is analysis of an ad the US Chamber of Commerce is running against Darcy Burner claiming she will raise taxes, and the article is titled 'Radio ad distorts Darcy Burner's position'.
Rather than shying away from her job of sifting through evidence, Heffter does analysis of the claims in the ad.
Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would affect many families, but the vague language of the ad gives a false impression that Burner's position would target families with children.
Regarding the two candidates' views on energy, the ad says Reichert "is fighting for lower energy costs, to give us some relief at the pump."
Fielder cited Reichert's 2006 vote on an amendment to end a moratorium on some offshore-oil drilling. But on the whole, Reichert opposes new offshore drilling, just as Burner does.
To boot, the paper puts the radio ad on its website so you can hear it yourself. This is great and takes advantage of the natural environment of the web. My only suggestion is that Heffter could link to votes as well.
This work gives the lie to the rest of the press that you have to do horse race 'this ad will change the race in this way' style journalism and perpetuate propaganda. You don't.
Oh, and the US Chamber is putting $20 million as a nonprofit organization or trade association, with no limits, into paid political communications. Can we please all agree that there are de facto no limits on campaign contributions?
STATE BLOGS
