Here is one <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-romney-kicking-off-week-of-intense-courting-of-key-groups-battleground-states/2012/09/16/8be06a4e-0065-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_story.html" rel="nofollow">typical example</a> of on-the-trail coverage: Obama "touts" a U.S. lawsuit accusing China of unfair trade practices and "taunt[s] Romney for gaps in his deficit-cutting promises." The story also focuses on a newly surfaced video of Romney at private donor event.

A few hours after the AP story went up on the Washington Post website, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-romney-kicking-off-week-of-intense-courting-of-key-groups-battleground-states/2012/09/16/8be06a4e-0065-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_allComments.html?ctab=all_&" rel="nofollow">50-some comments</a> included one commenter calling another an "Idiot or a fool from France," another accuses "you liberal idiots" of "just throw[ing] around meaningless phrases." There's this barb too: "You just have a terrible candidate - nothing personal." And the reply: "You have a horrible president."

Are there ways political reporting could bridge the divide? Is there an ethical obligation to do so?

In addition to civility and responses to coverage, other ethical issues in election season might come up around fact-checking, transparency of interests (of supporters, candidates, and journalists), and political ads.

Share your examples of either unmet ethical challenges or great practices in political coverage, and help lay the groundwork for a new ethics guide. 