Prop B is probably the most contentious issue on the November ballot. The charges and counter-changes have run wild. Claims true and false are all over our comments. The un-rabid defenders/accusers don’t know what to think.

A few verified facts would help, right?

At the 3 pm meeting Thursday, John Schneller said offered three journalism units:

  • A narrative article that he described as “fine but nothing special.”
  • A QnA on the difference between existing law and Prop B.
  • A chart doing much the same thing.

The latter two were described as superior to the article.

So what appeared in the lead position of the home page and the front page Friday morning?

The article.

The comparison was the sixth item under “best of the rest” on the home page. A reader wouldn’t know there was a chart unless she made it to the bottom of the QnA.

The chart didn’t make it into the print edition.

The article was pretty much as billed. It was technically fine. It had a nice anecdotal lede with someone who isn’t foaming at the mouth followed by background on puppy mill raids, quotes by opponents, etc. Nice story that I could have read a month ago or six months ago.

The QnA and chart were far from perfect. There was redundancy, for instance. The chart had nary a single hyperlink to original material except for the actual language of statute and proposed statute. Neither answered all my questions. But at least it attempted to clear some of the fog from this thing.

What I need now is clarity on the issue. What I got was driven by a master narrative in which “mainbar” and narrative article are synonymous.