Post Punks Pols & Us

The Washington Post (WaPo) is the preeminent political newspaper in the county. WaPo sends out teams of reporters to cover the smallest detail of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary. But they give a rats ass about local races. WaPo has punked us.

Right here under their nose they have the seminal race for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Eight term Congressman Albert Wynn represents the establishment wing of the Democrats; Donna Edwards is running from his left and with bloggers and activists by her side. There are another four candidates, perhaps smelling blood in the water, also vying for the seat. They had the closest race in the country just 16 months ago. So where is the coverage? Where are the heavyweight reporters and above the fold coverage?

So the Post, I have one question: "What is it good for?" Absolutely nothing.


In 2002, WaPo had three above the fold pieces on the Van Hollen, Marc Shriver and Ira Sharpio race before the primary. They had polls on the race. Their corporate cousin, the Gazette, had at two polls leading up to the primary.

Politicians love polls. Readers of political publications love polls. WaPo puts polls in any race of note. So one question: Have you seen a poll on the biggest Congressional primary in the country, that being the 4th Congressional District of Maryland?

WaPo what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again, y'all.

How come WaPo gave us three major pieces on Congressional District 8 in 2002 and all we get in this election season is a bunch of Metro pieces.

The Post should be ashamed of its coverage of Fourth District. No polls. Nothing more than the short bios. One reporter coverage. Heck, even NOW took 20 minutes to cover the race on Friday. And they wonder why readership is down.

By not covering the race, WaPo tells us a lot of what it thinks of the race -- and us. So where is the poll coverage of the pols.

WaPo, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Listen to me.