This afternoon, I received an e-mail message which claims to be from Justin Katz, the Ocean State Current editor who appeared on "10 News Conference" last weekend and said that he suspected Anthony Gemma was running to lose. Here's what the feedback, from justin@justinkatz.com, said:

Just a couple of notes: I didn't "accuse" the Gemma campaign of anything. In a light-hearted way, I proposed a hypothetical and offered alternatives. And it would have been nice if you'd been more explicit that the comment on Bob's appearance was not made by me.

For some reason, I'd thought you more fair than that.

Readers who may have missed the story, go watch the video. The segment in question is at 11:04.

I've watched the clip several times. I'm not seeing anything in Mr. Katz's words that indicates he is proposing a light-hearted hypothetical. Katz makes the claim about Gemma, then follows it up with supporting evidence: that he won't attack Cicilline, is not available to the media, does strange things, and exhibits wild shifts in policy. True, he does end the his observation with "starts to make you wonder, at least for the fun of observing politics."

But journalists shouldn't get a pass on making grand speculations by ending up with "oh, that was only a light-hearted hypothetical." Saying that someone is running a campaign to lose sounds to my ears like an accusation.

And I specifically attributed the observation about Plain's appearance to a "comment on" the Ocean State Current wrap-up. Not a "comment IN the wrap-up." It's the web. We all know what a comment is.

I'll leave it to my readers to decide for themselves, but I stand by my coverage.