October 09, 2006
Bad Reporting Snapshot

Charles Pope of the PI embarrasses himself today with this article on this year's Congressional races in Washington state.

Pope does accurately convey,

the two districts held by Republicans -- the 4th District by Doc Hastings and the 5th District by Cathy McMorris -- are skating through the election with little if any interest from the Democratic Party's national apparatus. Independent political analysts say Hastings and McMorris should win easily.

[Pan to the heads of assorted netroots bloggers spinning around in circles].

But, Pope does himself no favors with his shoddy reporting on the 2nd Congressional District race.

The best name Republican Dennis Roulstone could attract in his effort to unseat Larsen was Rep. Phil English, a little-known six-term lawmaker from Pennsylvania.

Well first, it's Doug Roulstone, not Dennis. Moreover, Pope's own paper reported VP Dick Cheney campaigned for Roulstone earlier this year, as have Newt Gingrich, and two members of the Cabinet as well.

It's easy to admit Roulstone's initially promsing bid is now in trouble (great candidate, bad campaign), but there is no excuse for Pope's lazy reporting.

Hat tip: Patrick Bell

Posted by Eric Earling at October 09, 2006 07:45 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Goldmark's trying, though, God bless him. He's pushing hard with the "Democrats are better for vets" ploy.

Amd what's more, the vets he uses in his commercials actually seem to be Americans (which puts him one up on the DNC).

Posted by: ScottM on October 9, 2006 07:51 AM
2. You know, it might be more newsworthy to identify "fair and balanced" reporting from the PI and Times. It will certainly be more of a challenge than reporting biased or filtered coverage, which can be found in virtually any article covering politics, elections, or social policies reported in these two rags.

Posted by: MJC on October 9, 2006 10:51 AM
3. Maybe having Gingrich and the 2 Bush cabinet members was part of Roulstone's problem. The President's attention to Dave Reichert did little but help Darcy raise money, and give her a great picture of the two together for her TV ads.

Posted by: marsha on October 9, 2006 11:36 AM
4. Fortunately for Goldmark,

"Democrats are better for veterans"

is a statement of fact.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on October 9, 2006 12:14 PM
5. Fortunately for Goldmark,

"Democrats are better for veterans"

is a statement of fact.


If by "better for vets" you mean "better at undermining what they fought for and slandering their service", then yes, they are better for vets.

Posted by: Cliff on October 9, 2006 12:32 PM
6. "Democrats are better for veterans"
is a statement of fact.

Posted by Ben Diamond at October 9, 2006 12:14 PM

No. It isn't.
It's your opinion.

And the only veterans who think Democrats are better for them are the same veterans who believe the government should be providing them anything and everything, no matter what the cost or how deserved it may be. Mo money, mo money, mo money and screw everybody else ... including those who are forced to foot the bill.

Some veterans - like me - don't expect to have access to the mother pig's teat for the rest of all time. Some veterans - like me - don't use their veteran status to whine and bitch about some perceived 'disrespect' and clamor for more money.

What type of veteran are you, Ben?

Posted by: jimg on October 9, 2006 12:33 PM
7. Ben - ""Democrats are better for veterans" is a statement of fact."

What are your sources?

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html:

In Bush's first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

http://veterans.house.gov/legislation/109/budrep07.pdf
http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/speec452.htm
http://www.house.gov/radanovich/veterans.htm
http://www.va.gov/budget/summary/1514Chapter2.pdf
http://www.va.gov/budget/summary/1514Chapter6.pdf
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/veterans/a/vabudget04.htm
http://www1.va.gov/OPA/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=941
http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=569

By the way - yes, I did ignore the Democratic web sites and all the others that quoted the democrats talking points.


Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 9, 2006 01:03 PM
8. "Fortunately" how, Ben? He'll lose by 18 points rather than 22?

(That, of course, leaves aside the childish inability to distnguish between opinion and fact, as well as the questionable nature of your opinion, but I think that "fortunately" was the really amusing part of your post.)

Posted by: ScottM on October 9, 2006 01:59 PM
9. Hey Ben.

And what party with Al Bore tried to make sure the Mil votes were surpressed?

By the way Ben... They were really nice to the people of NAM when they said they would support them after we left in 1973. But guess what buddy, they lied!
Yeah can you believe that.. Cut off all funding.

But hey what's the few hundred thousands lives when it comes to the Dem's.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 9, 2006 02:27 PM
10. Bennny Boy

Where did you go, you havent responded to my post yesterday on the thread "Where Does Burner Stand on Tax Cuts?"

You just cut and run, what happened????

Posted by: Chris on October 9, 2006 06:13 PM
11. Goldmark is going to win! Didn't you guys read Connelly a few days ago? All's sweetness and light in his campaign! Of course, McMorris only got 23,000 more votes then Goldmark... in a partisan primary, a fact ol' Joel conveniently failed to mention, but, what the hey!

Minor detail. I'm SURE he'll overcome THAT!

Posted by: Hinton on October 9, 2006 07:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?