I'm generally a fan of The Washington Post, its reporters, and commentators... all of it. It's a great newspaper. I went to college inside of its delivery zone and really enjoyed flipping through it over my morning coffee. Given the distance I now live from Washington, D.C. — now I have to take to the Internets to get my WaPost fix.
But every great newspaper, every once in a while, publishes a story that makes you ask aloud, "Why is this a headline?"
Take this piece (which I know is online and may not be in the actual newspaper) pointing out the fact that the First Lady went to (the always super delicious) Shake Shack and had a ShackBurger (nice choice), an order of fries, a chocolate milkshake (personally, I like a caramel shake), and a Diet Coke. The Washington Post even went to the trouble of adding up the calories of the First Lady's meal, then correcting their first inaccurate attempt to add up the calorie count, and updating the online post from 1,556 calories to 1,700.
As Last Word Senior Producer Nikki Egan said to me earlier, "One of the main reasons to exercise is so, occasionally, we can eat something like that! In fact, after my super tough spin workout this morning, I will probably eat Shake Shack tonight."
Here's a few paragraphs from the Post's story (emphasis added):
First lady Michelle Obama ordered a whopper of a meal at the newly opened Washington diner Shake Shack during lunch on Monday.A Washington Post journalist on the scene confirmed the first lady, who’s made a cause out of child nutrition, ordered a ShackBurger, fries, chocolate shake and a Diet Coke while the street and sidewalk in front of the usually-packed Shake Shack were closed by security during her visit.According to nutritional information on Shake Shack’s Web site, the meal amounted to 1,700 calories. But it was impossible to tell whether the first lady intended to eat the entire order, or share with friends (the latter seems a tad more likely considering the two drinks).The first lady’s office did not comment on the subject.
Anyone want to take a guess as to why the First Lady's office didn't bother to comment on the subject?