Yesterday ABC’s political digest The Note parachuted into the donnybrook between Scott Brown (R-Have You Met My Wife?) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Why Can’t We Be More Like the Chinese?) and delivered an entirely uncritical overview of the hottest U.S. Senate race in the country.

Massachusetts Senate Race Pits the Colonel vs. the Professor

BOSTON — Ask any Republican or Democrat to name the most important Senate races in the fight for control of the Democratic-led chamber, and they will undoubtedly include one state in particular: Massachusetts. The state’s Republican Sen. Scott Brown will go up against Democrat and Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren in what polling indicates is likely to be a close race.

The problem with the Note piece is that it’s more narrative than analysis, reproducing the candidates’ statements instead of scrutinizing them.

Exhibit A:

“Bottom line is, I’m the second-most bipartisan senator in the U.S. Senate,” Brown said. “I’ve done exactly what I said I was going to do, which is to read the bills, understand them, see how they affect Massachusetts, our country, our debt, our deficit and vote.”

That’s true only if you measure 2011 Senate votes (see Boston Globe piece here). But it’s not true if you consider key votes from 2010 to 2012 (see Globe piece here). A small detail, to be sure, but one worth, er, noting.

Warren gets a similar pass on statements such as this:

“America’s middle class is getting hammered and Washington is rigged to work for the big guy. That’s what got me into this race, and that’s what I will talk about.”

Uh-huh. Tell that to the homeowners whose foreclosed house she flipped. Or the asbestos victims she fought against on behalf of Travelers Insurance.

Agree or disagree with the hardworking staff’s criticism, you have to admit The Note failed to do its due diligence.

Beyond any quibbles over the facts, that’s the central issue here.