My bloghopping took me recently to "The BRAD BLOG," which is the blogsite of Brad Friedman.
Friedman's "Huffington Post" bio describes Friedman as an "Investigative Blogger."
I dropped by, admittedly, because I couldn't resist the lure of potentially having a Bad Blogs' Blood post titled "Bad Blog: The Brad Blog."
When I stopped by, the second-to-latest post concerned a recent debate between incumbent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and challenger Debra Bowen.
Brad Friedman favors Bowens' voter "Bill of Rights," apparently.
At first blush, the list looks unrealistic (a right to vote in a tamper-proof election?).
My concern, however, is Friedman's review of the debate, since I'm curious as to whether or not he is best described as an "investigative blogger" or a "partisan hack" (and perhaps worthy of recognition at Bad Blogs' Blood).
In updating the post, Friedman accused McPherson of lying early on in the debate, but didn't add any details at that time.
I watched part of the debate, and in Bowen's opening statement she seems to have provided a staggering piece of disinformation, centered on her claim that "52 percent of Americans do not have confidence that their vote will be counted as it was cast.”
Bowen cited a Pew Research Center poll in support of her claim, and I believe I have identified the one she's talking about, though I've e-mailed her campaign to try to get an authoritative statement as to the source of the claim.
I responded to Friedman's post in the "comments" section, offering to compare notes on the opening statements. Since I posted, Friedman dedicated a post to lambasting McPherson, but he seems to have granted Bowen a pass.
So far, Friedman's looking like the partisan hack.
This story will probably continue at Bad Blogs' Blood.