Some of you had great fun last week beating us up for covering Anthony Pollina's "non-event." It's OK, I can take it. My mother still loves me.
But here's the piece of your carping that I don't buy. First off, people were wondering - including some of you - what the Prog was going to do. So we let you know the answer to that.
But behind your complaints seems to be the underlying presumption that if we cover a candidate's event, it's automatically a plus for that candidate. I don't think it is.
If you have a story that quotes a local political scientist saying the candidate is making a mistake is that pure positive for that candidate?
Ideally, a story is giving readers a better picture of the whole situation so they can make informed decisions.
Are the voters sitting at home reading their newspapers thinking: "Look at this man's picture and this story about him - I think I'll vote for him"?
Though all the campaign and their supporters seem inclined to, you can't count up stories about each candidate like a score sheet and pronounce who's won the coverage game.
Now, if the story had said, "Candidate bashes off naysayers, ready to save state from certain disaster," that'd be another thing. I didn't see that story, though.
- Terri Hallenbeck