Why The Washington Post won’t cover us
May 30, 2008 in Editorials
Apparently it’s because they are too poor to do so. This is taken directly from their website.
Belfast, Maine: In the coming weeks there will be many days when there’s little real political news about the Republicans or Democrats to report. Any chance that one of The Post’s political staff might do a piece on what the Green Party, for example, is up to? (I’ve asked this question during six earlier Post political chats and have gotten no response, a fact I find interesting in itself.)
Paul Kane: I’ll happily answer this one, and I’ll be brutally honest. We don’t have enough resources to cover your party. it’s that simple, and if that infuriates you, I’m sorry. But that’s life. The Green Party and Nader got plenty of coverage in ’00 when, at the least, he had the chance to play a decisive role in some states. So far, there’s little indication that the Greens will have any major impact on the ’08 election. Until you can demonstrate that there is some level of support for your party, our paper isn’t going to spend precious resources reporting on whatever it is you’re doing. I’m sorry, but we’re a business, and lots of my colleagues are walking out the door under volunteer buyouts. We don’t have the resources to cover you guys.
OK gang…there it is. We can throw the election to Bush and be “responsible” for 8 years of Bush & Co. We can bring vital issues to the debate. We can elect hundreds of people across the nation to office. We can run the nation’s best known consumer rights advocate, and a former SIX TERM congresswoman with a high profile and a history of making news…and the Post can’t find the cash to cover us? Really? For real? Somehow, I think he’s lying.
Oh…if ya wanna, the entire screed can be found here.