Remember when Senator Daschle was in South Dakota on April 3rd and he told a businessman concerned about high insurance costs that doctors pay "way too much" for medical malpractice premiums? And then a few days later he voted against medical malpractice tort reform in the Senate? And the Argus Leader didn't cover it? Here are the links FYI (Daschle's having it both ways was also mentioned on the blog Overlawyered, which DVT neglected to mention at the time). Remember Argus Leader editor Randell Beck's column last Sunday "examining the role of journalism in elections"? After comparing TV news to a toilet, Beck then notes the shallowness of horse-race journalism and then this:
What do people want from us to form an intelligent decision? Here's what one reader, from Brookings, said he wants: "As a voter, I want to know the specifics, not the generalist drivel the candidates and their campaign managers get away with,'' he told me.
Fair enough. How about the specifics, say, of tort reform Mr. Beck? It's a great issue to analyze since the candidates have such different views--Daschle is opposed, Thune is in favor. You could also note that Daschle takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from trial lawyers who oppose tort reform. You could also note that Daschle says malpractice insurance costs are "way too high" when he's in South Dakota but votes against medical malpractice tort reform in DC. By reporting the "specifics," however, as the Brookings fellow wants, it wouldn't be helpful to Daschle. And from reading the newspaper for the last four years in a critical manner (when I was younger, I just soaked it in as Gospel), it's clear the Argus is loathe to report items which hurt Daschle, as last week's blowup over the Kranz column demonstrated. Perhaps this is why the Argus doesn't dig into the "specifics" of many stories. Whatever the reason, the Argus has a tremendous responsibility to the democratic process.
Comments