How many stories can The Washington Post use one analyst in one day? Today’s answer: three. Mike Shear, Peter Whoriskey and Rosalind S. Helderman all quoted George Mason professor Mark Rozell in their stories. His insights:
“Both candidates [for the Republcian nomination for Lieutenant Governor] have been running really far to the right,” said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University.
George Mason University public policy professor Mark J. Rozell said Byrne appealed to “the more true-believer types” who dominate a Democratic primary. “The activist core tends to be much more liberal than the general election base.”
“The races are somewhat a test case of how viable this anti-tax movement can be,” said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University and co-editor of “The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics.” “If we judge them by the criterion of winning primaries, we ultimately may judge them failures after tonight. If the criterion is their ability to foster debate and send a signal to incumbents, they might be considered successful.”
Gee, all of those thoughts caught me completely by surprise. What astute perceptions! (The last one seems a particularly contorted stretch to keep the tax battle alive and will no doubt be used by reporters to justify the same angles through November.)
How lazy can one newspaper collectively be to quote the same guy in three stories with comments that a reasonable intelligent seventh grader could make? This is not to bash Rozell. I’m sure he works very hard to get himself quoted: good for the school; good for him. But why can’t reporters expand their Rolodex beyond a half dozen poli sci professors? Many bloggers have had more astute comments over the past few days. Why not call upon them? Even if they are generally partisan, I think the chance of getting insight is probably better with those closer to the ground.