Just because the Examiner does provide local news coverage doesn't mean it isn't "wacked"

I should have mentioned that the Examiner's opinion pages are "inconsistent", by that I mean often illogical, because the conservative orientation and agenda of the paper too frequently breeds irrational and inconsistent argumentation. (I don't know the term from philosophical argumentation, but generally examples that are irrelevant to your argument should not be used to build your case.)

Generally this is seen in the op-eds, by Barbara Hollingsworth and others, but also in the lead unsigned editorials, such as today's "Mayor Fenty Fails the Snow Test."

According to the editorial, a private company, with a limited number of customers (never disclosed) manages to clear the driveways and parking lots of all of its customers.

From this single data-less example the Examiner argues that the City of Washington should privatize snow removal.

According to the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element, the City of Washington has 1,153 miles of roadway and 1,647 miles of sidewalks.

Couldn't the peerless Examiner at least tell us how many trucks capable of snow removal are owned by Premium Paving?

But this isn't about logic, it's about using any and all examples to support a pre-existing agenda and position. (Frankly, it's not much different from the Post, when it comes to the editorial page.)