CITY LIMITS: Barlett and Steele, Part II

"It was obviously politically motivated," said Political Science Professor Henry Teune. "When they write something like that, they obviously have an anti-establishment slant." Some people, like Assistant Political Science Professor Graham Walker, have even speculated that Barlett and Steele's series directly effected the outcome of last week's Senate election, in which Democrat Harris Wofford surprisingly defeated Republican Richard Thornburgh. "It seems to me it was perfectly timed to bolster the campaign tactics of Harris Wofford," Walker said. "It seems clear that the burden of the story was remarkably supportive of Wofford's campaign." Barlett and Steele deny that they intended the series to point to any one candidate or to endorse a particular political agenda. Indeed, they both scoff at the idea, saying that newspapers are not able to predict two years in advance what the outcome of an endeavor will prove. "If you finely read the series, you'll see there's really blame on both sides of the line," Steele said. "We started this thing out as a totally different series. Neither one of us had any idea of what it would balloon into." Steele added that the series simply points out the inequities of the status quo -- it does not propose any particular solution. Rick Tulsky, a long-time Inquirer reporter -- himself a Pulitzer Prize winner -- defended Barlett and Steele, saying they write exactly what they find, motivated not by politics but by the truth. He said they seem unaware of any political furor they may have caused. "They go about their business and you get no sense that they realize that what they're doing is part of any political process," Tulsky said. "These are not raging liberals we're talking about." Tulsky laughed at the idea that Barlett and Steele and the Inquirer purposely tried to sway the Senate election with the series, noting that during the weeks before the election, the newspaper often seemed to bend over backwards to keep coverage balanced. To some experts, the political ramifications of the series are actually negligible. Temple University Political Science Lecturer Brigid Callahan said she thinks the stories merely served to strengthen already existing political viewpoints. "If you agreed with it, your views would probably be reinforced," Callahan said. "If you didn't agree with it, you probably didn't agree with the story either. I seriously doubt it changed anyones' mind."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.