Coverstone Pins Papers to the Mat for Biased Campaign Coverage

Alan Coverstone takes the Tennessean (Michael Cass) and the City Paper (Bill Harless) to task for the obvious spin that they put on their ledes of the Mayoral candidates' fundraising:

If the story is about how much the campaign has to spend, then inclusion of personal money [in the form of self-donations and loans] is most appropriate, but if the question is what does fundraising show about which candidate has broader support, then [David] Briley's numbers show him solidly in second place and the more likely runoff participant when compared to any of the other non-Clement candidates.

Alan also points out that personal contributions should not count as a sign of popular support and that, in rationalizing it, the press just keeps retreading a Karl Dean talking point that he has had to spend his own money on name-recognition because he is not a "career politician." As Alan says, such a generalization is demeaning to public service and it is a denial of the fact that Mr. Dean himself held a political appointment in Metro.

Alan provides the real numbers of money raised that the press seems to be ignoring. Keep in mind that both the Tennessean and the City Paper have endorsed Karl Dean, and do not rely on them exclusively for the facts. Go see Alan's more reliable data after the jump.