On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry spoke on several environmental issues in Tampa, Florida, and took questions -- one of which was about offshore oil drilling, a hot-button topic in Florida.
This is how The St. Petersburg Times's Adam C. Smith reported Wednesday on what Kerry said about offshore drilling: "While Kerry has consistently opposed oil drilling off Florida, he said he supports drilling where it already has been approved." This sentence came 415 words into Smith's 1,000-word report, accompanied by no further detail or analysis.
The Tampa Tribune's William March did not even include Kerry's drilling remarks in his initial story on Kerry's speech. Nor did Kerry's drilling comments make it into The Miami Herald's Wednesday account by reporter Lesley Clark.
The next day, Smith of the St. Petersburg Times returned with some vigor -- and with fellow reporter Joni James -- to the subject he had all but kissed off earlier, describing Kerry's remarks on drilling as "imprecise," and among evidence that "Kerry has a knack for ambiguity."
Also on Thursday, Clark of the Herald joined the chase, leading with this: "For most Floridians, drilling for oil off the coast is akin to paving the Everglades or mutilating manatees." Clark then describes Kerry as having "on Tuesday endorsed drilling 'in the right places' but left it unclear where he stood on drilling off Florida's coast."
And today, March, of the Tribune, also playing catch-up, wrote that "in his speech ... Kerry did give a nuanced answer to a question about one of the most inflammatory issues in Florida."
Given that offshore drilling is such a key issue to "most Floridians," shouldn't Clark -- and Smith and March -- have reported in full what Kerry said on the topic in their first stories on the speech -- particularly if Kerry's remarks about drilling were "unclear"? (And then, presumably, sought clarification for their readers?)
