But Chuck gets to both the Gubernatorial campaign and the fundraising much farther down in the story. Why?

Well, first let’s turn to the Morrison blurb. That fits in a story that involves Morrison for the same reason you gave for including Davison’s ties to the Burns campaign: It’s the most newsworthy thing he’s done lately.

But it becomes even more newsworthy when put in context of Davison’s volunteer work for the Burns campaign. Then, the fact that Morrison once sought to run against the man Davison was helping is more relevant.

(No. I am not saying the charges are politically motivated. I’m saying the information about Morrison would have been more relevant in that light.)

Had I been writing the story, I would have mentioned Davison’s gubernatorial run right about where Johnson mentions Morrison. Then I would have tacked on the volunteer work for Burns. Then I would have mentioned Morrison’s primary race.

This is where I must admit my own ignorance. Chuck and Jan are both good reporters, and I am not. So perhaps there’s a good reason why they chose the order they did. But I don’t know what it is or would be.