Passage Summary: People used to think a certain politician was honest because the news said so, but he turned out to be corrupt. The author uses this to argue that the local news is too soft on powerful people and doesn't investigate them enough.

Conclusion: Local media outlets are overly deferential toward public figures.

Reasoning: The media failed to investigate leads that would have exposed a politician's corruption, despite having previously praised him as honest.

Analysis: The conclusion is the broad claim the author is trying to prove using the Clemens scandal as evidence. You can identify it by the phrase 'This demonstrates how,' which signals that the preceding facts are being used to support the statement that follows. The mention of the editor's admission serves as a supporting premise to bolster the idea that the media was negligent. When looking for the conclusion, always ask: 'What is the author's main point that they want me to take away?'