Wow. I’ve seen some heavy-handed coverage from the Gazette before, but today’s “news” response to the academic study by David Erceg-Hurn stands out as a remarkable example of journalistic advocacy. I’m not even sure the lede was alive long enough to be buried.
The news in the story is the report that suggests that the Montana Meth Project not only has had limited impact, but has buried its own research that demonstrates weaknesses of the program. In her story today, Jennifer McKee devoted one paragraph to describing the study, two sentences to its findings, and the remaining 18 paragraphs to the same old anecdotal claims about the amazing, breathtaking, unprecedented success of the Meth Project.
Interesting to see what stories deserve “journalistic balance” and which ones don’t, isn’t it?