What's it worth?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:43 am

Any of you giving what you feel is too much coverage to the Democrat convention? ... and ditto in regard to Republican conventions.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:23 pm

Almost any coverage is too much coverage of these pointless formalities.[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

secretsquirrel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:04 pm

Almost any coverage is too much coverage of these pointless formalities.No matter how unappealing, Reality is your hostess and you must ask her to dance.[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: secretsquirrel ][ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: secretsquirrel ]

JonScribe · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:50 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
Almost any coverage is too much coverage of these pointless formalities. ]<hr></blockquote>Sorry. Gonna disagree.Yeah, it was decided long ago who the candidate and his running mate were going to be, but there is a purpose to the convention. You can argue whether four days are necessary, but with an election that will be determined by a healthy number of undecided voters, then the conventions offer the parties and their candidates an opportunity to speak to those voters.No, it doesn't have to play on 1A every day, but it does have a place in daily coverage. There's already too much horse-race coverage during the campaigns. At least the conventions offer a few opportunities for policy coverage.

Testy Copy Editors

What's it worth?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links