LAZY JOURNALISM, AGAIN

In a story titled 'No big spenders for election', the Newsday tells us "THE COUNTRY’s three main political parties had differing views yesterday to the Elections and Boundaries Commission’s (EBC) view that “an extravagance of financing” took place in last year’s General Election."

The writer (there is no byline) goes on to tell us that the EBC report was laid in the Parliament last Friday by Deputy Speaker Pennelope Beckles, and that the PNM's John Donaldson said he was not aware of any extravagant spending, while Wade Mark of the UNC said the issue needed to be discussed at the level of the party, and Prakash Ramadhar of the COP reiterated his call for legislation on party financing.

But the person who wrote that piece did not do it justice, since we are still waiting to hear how much spending really took place during the election by the parties.
What figures were quoted in the EBC report? Which party spent the most? And if no figures were quoted, then why didn't the writer get those same people who gave differing views to say exactly how much was spent?

There's not even a line in the story saying none of them could say exactly how much was spent, or they said no comment or something along those lines. You could have thrown in the figures which were quoted during the elections on how much the parties spent on advertising alone, just to bring some perspective to the story.
Steups!
What was the point of writing that piece? Just reporting for reporting sake to fill a few extra inches in the paper?
Clearly.