The Review apologizes and promises reveal the identity of anonymous advertiser

The Review knows who took out the anonymous attack ad in its October 20 edition, and managing editor Clay Lambert has said when his investigation is complete he will publish a story not only revealing that person’s identity, but "all the players".

I talked to Clay this morning after reading his apology for the ad in today’s Review to find out if he knew the mystery shopper’s identity and why it wasn’t revealed before the election. He says that there was no time before the election to get the complete story and apparently that story is still under investigation.

"We have been duped," began Clay’s editorial in today’s Review, which ends with "And I’m sorry for that [the anti-democratic impact of the ad]". The apology is thorough and sincere, and Lambert goes on to mention some things the Review is doing to alleviate the problem, including following up with the Fair Political Practices Commission to see if the law was broken, rethinking the Review’s policy of allowing campaigns to reserve prime advertising space, and reconsidering accepting ads from committees without valid ID numbers.

My interpretation of all this is that the Review feels used. Regardless of their political alignment, nothing pisses off a newspaper publisher like being taken advantage of by a paying customer. It’s supposed to work the other way around.

Jonathan Lundell lost by fewer than 500 votes, so it’s entirely possible that this nasty, anonymous ad affected the outcome of the election. That can’t be undone, but the Review is taking the right steps in the wake of this mess.