Too personal? Ads sharing private phone numbers in Montana U.S. Senate race

KTVH is a local television news outlet with an attributed reporter and reporting that includes named sources and a request for comment from the campaigns involved. The article offers limited independent verification of the messages and does not include a response from the groups or campaigns associated with the ads.

• ▸Source type — Local news outlet with an established broadcast-news format.
• ▸Author attribution — The article names a reporter.
• ▸Transparency — It identifies sources for the flyers, text message, and statements, and reports attempts to obtain campaign comment.
• ▸Source diversity — Several named people are quoted, but the groups behind the ads and the campaigns asked for comment do not provide a response in the article.

The report uses named sources, includes direct quotations and identifies the political committee behind one set of flyers. Its evidentiary base is limited: the claims about the materials are largely conveyed through people who received or discussed them, and the campaigns asked to comment did not respond.

The article includes accounts from people affected by the sharing of phone numbers, but those voices largely oppose the tactic. It reports that the campaigns of Bankhead and Alme were contacted and did not respond, leaving the people or groups behind the ads without a substantive response in the story.

• ▸Source diversity — Neill, Bodnar’s office, Buchanan and Trump are quoted or cited, but no source defends the ad tactic.
• ▸Counterarguments presented — The article notes that Bankhead’s and Alme’s campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.
• ▸Opinion vs reporting — The article is reported as news and attributes opinions about the tactic to named speakers.
• ▸Omitted context — It provides little detail about the groups’ rationale or the full context of the messages.

The article uses mostly neutral reporting language and attributes critical descriptions of the ads to the people quoted. It focuses on those criticizing the practice, but reports attempts to get responses from both campaigns named in the story.

• ▸Language tone — Critical labels such as “dirty” and “bullying” are attributed to speakers rather than presented as the reporter’s own descriptions.
• ▸Source selection — The article quotes people criticizing the practice and notes that the campaigns of the candidates asked for comment did not respond.
• ▸Framing — The story reports the sharing of personal numbers as a campaign tactic without making a broad partisan argument.