The Post Notices The Billy Graham Crusade

In the course of three days, some 500,000 people are expected to dedicate or re-dedicate their lives to Christ, and the Post writes the piece as if it were a non-phenomenon. Just an old-timer's valedictory, and the Post's lament that Graham's civility has given way to the hateful rants of the whacko protesters outside.

Hel-lo-o. It may well be Graham's valedictory, but you have to be willfully perverse to suggest that one weird family is the new mainstream Christianity versus the 500 thousand not-old people who are attending the event rather than protesting it. The author is smug in his rejection of the Phelps, but he accepts their characterization of the event, so who's the crazy one?

How do you cover an event with 100,000 people in attendance and not interview one of them? How does your editor let you?