Here’s a great example of reporting that is not specifically inaccurate, but is highly misleading, and it would appear intentionally so. From The Baltimore Sun (FEC clears path for new DGA offshoot):

— The Federal Election Commission deadlocked Thursday over a proposal by the Democratic Governors Association to set up an organization that could engage in federal elections — a result that effectively permits the new group to go forward.

After a series of meetings and hours of debate, the five members of the commission wound up in essentially the same position they began: a de facto party-line vote that will allow the DGA to create a group called Jobs & Opportunity that will expand its electoral reach.’

Let’s leave aside whether this “effectively permits the group to go forward” – a bit of an overstatement, but probably fair enough. The FEC hasn’t told them it is illegal, though conceivably in two months, with 2 new commissioners, it could. Thursday’s decision, because it did not gain 4 votes at the Commission, is not binding on the Commission. But like I said, fair enough.

But why does the author feel compelled to note that this is a “party line vote”? It is, but not in the way implied – the 3 Republicans voted to allow the DGA to go forward, the 2 Democrats voted no. The implication is that the “party line” explains the outcome, when it does not. This fits the longstanding narrative that the Commission merely acts as partisan hacks defending their parties, which is really unsupported.

One has to go over halfway through the story to find out that “the three Republican commissioners voted to allow the DGA to create Jobs & Opportunity. Two Democrats opposed the idea.”

The author appears to simply like the narrative – gridlock, party hacks, self-serving rulings – over something that might give a more honest understanding to readers. The article quotes no commissioners and gives no argument at all as to why the Republicans would vote “for” the DGA, while the Democratic commissioners voted “against” the DGA. The reader who is not familiar with the issue would be, we think, thoroughly confused.

The Sun has always been one of the worst newspapers at covering campaign finance, and it appears it has no intention of improving.