Boy, nothing gets by the Post's Charles Hurt, who writes the umpteenth (pointless) article about how Obama, in his first year in office, is giving more press interviews than his predecessors did.

Other than the fact that the topic includes the media itself, why do journalists keep writing up the same story over and over and over? What's the point? Where's the news value?

Hurt also loses points for not including any context in his write-up:

In the New York Times alone, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, 405 stories on the Obama administration have appeared on the front page through mid-August of this year totaling 119,678 column inches. That's 9,973 column feet of Obama coverage on the Times front page alone.

Of course, those statistics are only interesting, they're only newsworthy, if readers know how they compare to the number of articles the Times produced for previous administrations. Is it triple? Is it the same. Is the number actually less than what the Times published during the first seven month's of Bush's term?

Readers have no idea because all journalists care about is that the president is giving lots of interviews to journalists.