I was recently taken to task by none other than Journal Star columnist Phil Luciano for a recent blog post of mine that was picked up by The Drudge Report. My blog posts are “unvetted,” unedited, and of questionable reliability. Furthermore, bloggers are scurvy individuals you’re better off not knowing. He asks, “can you call it journalism when much of it consists of unedited copy shared without any attempt to seek other sides?”

So imagine my surprise when I came across this article about Main Street Commons. In it, the journalist reports all the positives of the new project and what a boon it is to the area without ever interviewing a single resident of University East or other surrounding neighborhoods, despite their expressions of concern over some aspects of the project, including the pool that is mentioned in the article.

On the other hand, there are numerous quotes from the project developer, as well as a representative from Bradley University. But there is no mention of the fact that Bradley is an investor in the project, which would of course bias its opinion just a little. There is no mention of the slow sales of units that the developer has experienced, which was covered by the Bradley Scout over the past several months, or how that likely contributed to Bradley’s decision to turn part of the development into a freshman dorm — the first time Bradley will be allowing underclassmen to live off campus.

Indeed, the whole piece reads like a reworked press release and advertisement for the new development. I guess that’s what an edited, vetted, reliable news article looks like. It’s apparently okay to be one-sided, as long as you’re on the approved side. Or if you’re so short-staffed you can’t spare a reporter to go out and get the other side.