I appreciate your comments--and also your e-mails. They raise a couple points I'd like to respond to.
1. I don't take issue with the idea that Rep. Allen ran a poor campaign. And I think there's a strong case to be made that even with much better reporting and editorial coverage from BDN and PPH, he still might have lost.
As I wrote in the post:
That's not too say that the skewed coverage from PPH--or BDN or the AP--proved decisive in the Allen-Collins race. And it's doesn't in any way excuse or explain away the Allen campaign's mistakes.Much could be written about where the Allen folks went wrong. But I'm really not that interested in Allen, and never have been.
Contrary to what's been said and implied by some of our right-leaning readers, he's never been what this blog was about.
So my point really isn't that the press sank Allen or that the press is to blame for his loss. I wasn't trying to summarize the race, or explain why Collins won and Allen lost.
My point, instead, is that the press did an abysmal job. And in way that seemed designed to benefit Sen. Collins. Period.
2. I also didn't mean to imply that Collins should have lost the race over the Edwards interview. (I think it was an embarrassing--and revealing--slip. But in the scheme of things, I don't think it was terribly significant.)
I highlighted the coverage of the Edwards flap because I thought it spoke to the nature of the coverage overall, and because it provided two simple, concrete examples of journalism gone awry.