The Times is free to deem statistics regarding their coverage as spurious, but they had better not be surprised when the stats they cite during their pet crusades are similarly dismissed out of hand
The trick is, I think Kahn is being completely honest here. They think they're giving each topic the full consideration it's due. But as far as I can tell, that measure is largely "whatever we & our sources want to chat about," which means lots of elite navel-gazing & Democratic inside baseball
