Because I simply can’t handle any more Democratic clusterfucks or depressing thoughts about science funding, I want to vent my spleen on bad political reporting. Take this story about two tax-related ballot items in Oregon. One might think that a story about two proposed tax-related measures in a national paper (i.e., one that doesn’t follow Oregon politics) would actually explain what those two items were.

You would be wrong.

In fact, if you read the whole article (I don’t really recommend it), these are the only descriptions of the ballot measures:

On Tuesday, voters here and across Oregon will have the chance to make that happen when they decide the fate of two ballot measures that would raise taxes on higher-income residents and on businesses to help pay for public education and other services. Known as Measures 66 and 67, the votes are referendums on $727 million in tax and fee increases that were approved last year by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

And:

Supporters, led by teachers and public employees’ unions, point out that the income tax increase affects less than 3 percent of the population: individuals who earn more than $125,000 a year. They say the state’s wealthier residents should pay more to help those with less. They also say that state businesses enjoy a relatively low tax burden and that most small businesses will pay only $140 more in fees.

Nowhere does the article mention what these tax increases are. How much would individuals who earn over $125,000 annually pay? What does “most small businesses” mean? I’m (uncharacteristically) not trying to make a political or policy point; I really don’t know what these measures entail.

Fortunately, there is this thing called The Google I’ve heard about, which led me rapidly to the effects of these measures. So why didn’t the article mention at least some of the information there? It’s not that complicated (#66 is particularly straightforward)

And The Times wants to put this behind a paywall?