Let's look at the pluses and minuses to see why and how.
Minus: If you're scanning the headlines, expect confusion. Candidates? For what? This isn't an election. The Board will choose one of the three applicants by majority vote of its four members, or, failing that, the ESD will handpick one. Though their educational philosophies were asked for and presented, the article itself doesn't list them.
Plus: My question about extracurricular activities makes the cut. Obviously, the writer and editor have good taste in interrogation tactics.
Plus: The article's summary of the backstory is concise. However, this also becomes a...
Minus: Lots is missing. No word from the article, for example, that the process could potentially fail, and the ESD would have to step in
Minus: There's no other analysis. Are the candidates substantively different? There's no mention of Tsou's "data driven" style, or her call for diversity, or unguarded moments. There's no discussion of the lone applause line (which John Keeffe delivered). There's no link to Parker's fundraising mustache, obvious and credible evidence of his community activism.
Most important, there's not mention of the tiny turnout.
I think most of the minuses can be explained by the demands of newsprint. When you have a set column space to work with, you have to skim and selectively quote, get the gist and move on, quickly. And, to be fair, the paper covers a wide range of issues for three major districts. Lord knows we can't get perfect depth on every single one.
Maybe it's time to really make something of the new medium, Olympian. You have a blog: now start linking to local bloggers.