Sunday's headline:

Democrats' Long-Held Seats Face G.O.P. Threat

Everybody knows Democrats are facing a touch election cycle, so articles like this will become increasingly common. And on the surface they're completely justified. But the Times piece today is really quite thin in terms of detailing how specific Democratic members of Congress with “long-held seats” face serious threats.

As one example, the article focuses on Rep. David Obey (D-WI) who has won 21 consecutive races and serves as chairman of Appropriations Committee. According to the Times, Obey's in trouble. Well, that's certainly the impression the Times gives readers. (He's “endangered.”) But is Obey really in re-election trouble? On that front, the Times never really says.

The newspaper points to no polling data to suggest Obey is. The Times quotes no independent Wisconsin political observers who suggest Obey is. The Times doesn't even quote any local voters who think Obey is. But the daily does quote Republicans who insist Obey is.

This is as far as the Times goes to demonstrate Obey's local woes [emphasis added]:

In the Seventh District of Wisconsin, which covers 17,787 square miles from the middle of the state to Lake Superior, signs of Mr. Obey's service in Congress are found in new bridges, highway expansions and countless other projects. Yet there are fewer signs of Mr. Obey himself. At the Democratic Party office in Wausau, his hometown, campaign placards hang in the window for Senator Russ Feingold, but none for Mr. Obey.

Really? That's the extent of the on-the-ground reporting on this?

I realize the hook here is, OMG somebody like Obey is about to get knocked off in November. And I'm not saying that's not going to happen. (I'm not in the business of forecasting elections seven months out.) But it seems to me that if the Times is going to build a Democratic woes article around Obey, reporters need to offer up more than just claims from Republicans that they're going to defeat lots of Dems with long-held seats.