Last week, I criticized the IR for giving a free pass to former Governor Marc Racicot. Today, they wrote a much more balanced pieced, inspired, I assume by Mike Dennison’s piece about Montana energy prices and his great piece about Racicot’s revisionism.
The IR seems to have had a change of heart about Marc Racicot’s take on deregulation. Last week, in their fluff editorial piece about Racicot’s visit to Montana, the IR just repeated Racicot’s assertion that deregulation was a good idea, one he would do again.
So does the IR deserve credit for running a better editorial today? Sort of. Where were these questions in the interview with Racicot? It’s not like this information was a mystery…anyone who pays to heat their homes knows what the impact of deregulation has been on Montana families and businesses.
It’s great to see that good reporting led to a better editorial. Wouldn’t it serve the IR better, however, to have not written an editorial about ‘a visit’ by an obviously partisan in the first place?