The Washington Post has a story today about the Virginia governor’s race that reflects, I hope, simply how a headline writer can sometimes spend too little time actually reading the story.  Of course, it could be that he or she looked for any story morsel that would reflect his or her opinion.  If you have another theory, I’m all ears.

The headline on the front page of the Metro section reads “Recession’s Pains Dull Attention to Campaigns.”  People have other things to think about.  Even the head on the jump reflects the same message:  “Struggling Residents Tune Out Governor’s Race.”  In fact, the economy is cited as the reason for the poor turnout in the Democratic primary.  At least that’s the inference of the story.

A deep nationwide recession has touched every corner of the commonwealth, from the depressed factory towns of the south to the high-tech corridors of Fairfax County. For many voters, the problems seem too big, too intractable for any governor to fix, which might have been a factor in the 6 percent turnout in Tuesday’s primary.

But in 2005, the turnout in the GOP gubernatorial primary was 3.98%.  Granted, in that one, it wasn’t hotly contested.  The 2001 Democratic primaries for lieutenant governor and attorney general were, however, and that turnout was only 4.23%.  So on what basis does the reporter say that 6% is a poor turnout?  It is in a cosmic sense, but when was the last time we were significantly above that for a gubernatorial primary?

Let’s forget, for the moment, that the opposite of what the headline reads is the conventional wisdom.  In these tough times, the wise politicos tell us, people are looking to government for solutions, for help, for anything.  Being against government is an argument only the diehard ideological Republicans will make.  The rest of us are looking to it to help us catch a break.

So what evidence do the reporter and headline writer point to support their contention that voters are tuning out, or that “the problems seem too big, too intractable for any governor to fix”?  How did they determine that “many voters” feel this way?

The lede is an anecdote about a woman who was at a school that doubled as a polling place last Tuesday. She was there to pick up her daughter.  She didn’t vote, but nothing about what she said indicated that she was tuning out of the race because of economic difficulties. She may have never voted in a primary in her life.  She may be a Republican who didn’t think it was her place to vote in a Democratic primary.  She may think that voting for politicians only encourages them.  We don’t know.   

In fact, the only person quoted in the story that supports the headline’s contention is a recently unemployed multimedia producer. 

"It just feels sometimes like you’re getting along, you’re able to maintain, but the little bumps in the road keep knocking you down a little bit more each time," he said. "I get the e-mails from all the candidates, from the Republicans or what have you. I delete just about everything."

[The producer], who calls himself a conservative Christian, said he is cynical about politicians. He said he believes that Providence, not the state, will lead him out of his troubles. It will be up to the candidates to persuade him otherwise.

Providence 1, Republicans 0, and the “what have you’s” a minus number. (This certainly has deflated the Democrats.)

Then you have a former USA Today editor who

…has not paid much attention to the governor’s race but will get up to speed by November out of necessity. 

"I have never looked towards any government for any support, ever, until now," he said.

That sounds like he thinks it’s a necessity to follow the governor’s race, that is does matter.

So now we’re at 1-1 in the score.

So how did the writer of the headlines come to his conclusion?

Perhaps she, too, relied on providence.

With such thin gruel with which to write a story, was this one worth the newsprint and ink?  Especially when there are such economic problems, wouldn’t it have been better to write a story about how state government can help?  What is it that state government can do, and that a governor can impact, that would help people?  If they knew, they might be in a better position to seek answers from candidates.

If you wonder why people are apathetic, maybe it’s because newspapers write stories to tell you that it doesn’t matter who you elect. 

If it doesn’t matter who we elect, why does the local paper even cover the campaign?

Another story about process – without any real substantiation. 

In Sunday’s Washington Post, the Virginia gubernatorial Democratic primary race got page A1 placement, apparently because voters are just becoming aware of the race.

The three Democrats seeking their party’s nod for governor of Virginia have launched a final, frenetic push for support in advance of Tuesday’s primary, a contest that remains remarkably fluid because vast numbers of undecided voters are only just tuning in now.

So voters are “just tuning in?”

I’ve asked The Post for some explanation of how they made that determination.  Could it be that there is a large undecided segment of voters?  They could be undecided because they can’t tell much difference between Terry McAuliffe, Brian Moran and Creigh Deeds.  Or perhaps they are unimpressed, frustrated, disappointed or still doing their research.

That newspapers cover state races only at the last minute is often attributed to their perception that people don’t tune in until the last week.  Certainly, the campaigns think that.  Why else would they wait until the last week to send us sometimes multiple mailings in a day, overflowing our mailboxes with dead trees we throw away without reading.

The Post has had articles about the race, of course.  My own quick Lexis Nexus search show nearly 40 article in the period March 1 through Memorial Day.  But only two could be remotely called issue articles. One was about New York Mayor Bloomberg running an ad about Virginia gun sales and another about teachers being skeptical of McAuliffe’s promises.  All the rest were about process:  Dems worried about voter fatigue, power of big names in race, a “drizzle” of ads, squabbles over fundraising, courting Facebook users, ties to lobbyists, etc.

It’s hard to tune in if newspapers aren’t telling you where the candidates stand on key issues.  You can argue that the three in the Virginia race are cut from the same cloth.  But there are key difference, some of which The Post has lately covered.  But would the months leading up to the primary be a good time to raises some of the more complex issue early enough so that voters could ask for more detail than we usually get at rallies?

At the very least there could have more substance and less process to the more than three dozen articles before Memorial Day.  After all, finding out about a key issue the weekend before the election doesn’t give you much time to do a little research, leaving you with the reporters’ takes on those issues.  But maybe that’s what they want.