It's a bit bizarre to read an article in a major national newsweekly that takes, as its primary subject, why it and other major national newsweeklies aren't giving much attention to a story. In this case, the subject at hand is John Edwards' poverty tour, and among the article's many unsatisfactory explanations for why the tour got so little ink is that "Edwards seems uncomfortable deviating from an established script" while "Kennedy would sometimes order his caravan to halt so he could chat with poor children he passed on the roadside."
Oh. At any rate, I think it's actually alright if the press doesn't lavish much coverage on a particular set of campaign stops, even if this set uses the topic of poverty to appear more virtuous than other sets. But if they don't want to cover it, they shouldn't cover it. If they do want to cover it, they should. But to simultaneously decide Edwards and poverty are too boring for column inches and then feel guilty and reach for a bunch of hollow explanations for "why" is just a waste of everybody's time.
