OPINION:
The first word of Thursday’s most important Washington Times article (as determined by the piece’s top-left, front-page placement) was “watchdog” (“Watchdog sees need for election fraud probe”). This term refers to the group that provided the news peg for this story, so one would think that identifying it and describing its actions would have been pretty basic and important to the credibility of the article.
Well, I read the entire front-page portion of the story (several times because I was sure that I was missing something), and there was no attempt to provide information on the identity or home base of this group, or its motivation for making the statement about the need for voter-fraud investigation. Not until the fourth paragraph in the continuation of the story, below the fold on page A12, did I find the group’s name: The Public Interest Legal Foundation.
This is totally unprofessional. It almost implies that The Washington Times did not want most readers to know that information — possibly assuming most would only read the ’most important’ parts of the on page one. I do not believe that, as a daily subscriber to this fine paper. I believe it was just shoddy work and poor coordination between the editors and layout people.
The Washington Times will get more interest and readership now that we have a Republican president. It is time to put your “A” game on the field and do it right.
JAMES KOUT
Bowie, Md.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.