Bias or Bad Journalism? (yet again)

We have an article on Michael Moore's visit to UC yesterday. We hear quotes from Moore, which is good. We get a report of who else appeared with Moore, which included REM. What we then got where quotes from Republicans: Susanna Oakley had tepid yet anti-Moore comments:

Susanna Oakley, an art history senior from Montgomery, said she was not impressed.

"He didn't say anything of substance. He's ridiculous," she said.

That was fine on the surface. That is her opinion and it would have been fine giving the opinion of someone who does not like Moore.

Then the writer ends with an indirect comment that was supposed to fact check Moore, but instead was just propaganda

Moore is twisting the facts, said Lindsay Quinn, a UC senior and organizer of the College Republicans. Those poll watchers will be impartial observers, she said, adding that Democrats will be observing too.

Now, first these are not poll watchers or "observers," they are challengers. They are there to challenge voters, not just watch the polls. They can't do anything but use their cell phone if they think something is wrong at the polls. What sets me off more is that this came from an "organizer of the College Republicans." Why not wake up and fact check what this person says before you publish it as a retort?

Where were the comments of someone who likes Moore and what he said? There were surely plenty of Young Democrats at the event, and the reporter could have gotten a quote, and if she did get a quote and the editor did not print it, well there is your clear cut bias from the Enquirer.