Sunday's Herald front page story on the mayor's race again showed us how to skew reporting to favor your candidate. John Stark does this type of reporting on a regular basis. His story lists controversial contributors to Brett's campaign at the very top of page 1.

Not reported was how many of Asmundson contributors have jobs because of the city, are appointed to commissions by him, or have business contracts with the city. A huge number. This is news. The Herald could have listed and questioned these people. It did not.

At the top of page 1, the Herald managed to cram in facts that paint Brett as supported by the extreme right and accepting gross amounts of money from development interests. That most-read top of page 1 Sunday Herald space was well used to hurt Bonner's chances with liberal and swing voters. Herald editors knew that would hurt Bonner - unless you want to think the editors are complete dunderheads with low intelligence.

At the very end of the article, at the bottom of page 4, was some info on Mark's contributors. I checked the PDC filings and the Herald did not show Mark's largest contributors. Just some normal ones. A former mayor's wife. Wow. Nor did the Herald list the developer interests contributing to Asmundson's campaign. Pat Jones, anyone?

They cough up or lose. I personally know of one closed-door deal that has netted Mark one of his largest contributions - and another he tried that was turned down and they are supporting Brett. Both were one-on-one in his office with no one else present. Both were money in return for legislation to be presented to the council by Mark - legislation he has previously opposed or ignored. I learned of both on strict off-the-record conditions. But I can tell you they stink of corruption.

The Herald is printing negative facts about Brett as subtly as it can. Without fair news reporting we citizens will always be guessing at who to vote for and who best represents our personal values. Mark is a corrupt mayor. You would never learn that from the Herald.