On the one hand, I should be happy that the Chron has finally written something about Richard Morrison. I'm willing to bet that this is the longest and most in-depth article they've ever written about any challenger to Tom DeLay. Unfortunately, this article brings home again just what I hate about the Chron's candidate-profile method, which is that it spends too little time with the candidate and too much time talking to the candidate's opponent. I've complained about this before, and I'll say it again: A candidate profile should be about that candidate. Period. A half-dozen paragraphs of the candidate's opponent's spokesperson saying that the candidate is wrong, lying, and a big old poopyhead besides doesn't add to my knowledge of this person. You can achieve "balance" by having separate articles about each candidate - you can even have them side by side if you're clever enough.
What happens if a candidate, who knows that his opponent will not be quoted in his profile, lies about something? Call me crazy, but is there any reason the reporter writing the story can't do a little fact-checking and represent objective truth when needed? Maybe even call the candidate on it? I feel that has to be better than the usual he said/she said style.
Anyway. This isn't the article I wanted to see written, but at least it was written. I'll take that for now.Posted by Charles Kuffner on May 24, 2004 to Election 2004 | TrackBack