A Vote for Coverage of Substance

You have to look beyond the paper's news pages for analysis. When McCain said that he would balance the budget by 2013, the plan wasn't critically examined except in an editorial; the Ideas Primary editorials have provided much-needed insight into the issues. Much of The Post's accountability coverage is done in Michael Dobbs's Fact Checker, which unfortunately is seldom in the paper. Neither is media writer Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch. If you're not looking online for Post coverage, you're missing some of the best stuff.

Voters want to know, especially in a troubled economy, about their pocketbooks. I admired a Wall Street Journal story and another on National Public Radio that reported how Obama and McCain might be expected to change tax policy. The Post needs to do these kinds of stories.

Their voting records should be explored extensively. Is Obama really relentlessly liberal? Is McCain really so conservative? Are both posing as centrists? While The Post has written about who advises the two candidates, I want to know what the advice is and whether it is being taken.

Tom Huff of Bealeton, Va., wrote recently and got it just right: "I really hope The Post's coverage of the election doesn't sink into a quagmire of process, politics and inside-the-Beltway chess games at the expense of issues that really affect our lives. . . . If all the news outlets want to talk solely about insider issues, that's all we'll know about. But if the focus is kept as keen as a laser beam on the critical issues of our times, then that's what the campaign will be about. That's what it has to be about. If The Post's staffers are true watchdogs of government, then that is the job that should be done. That's what we pay for with our subscription. Please tell your writers not to blow it this time."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.