Under a surprisingly large headline (for women's sports: "Washington tops shorthanded Chicago"), what picture do you think WAPO used for the story?
You might expect a picture of the Mystics scoring. A battle under the net. (The final score: 79-68.) A picture of the night's heroine, Emma Meesseman?
No, m'am, strike damn. Get real. That makes too much sense. That would be logical, no? To expect a picture of the Mystics? Or Coach Thibault or something... Mystics? On top of that big story about a game the Mystics won.
Why, of course, WAPO used a photo of, of (sic and hold on) competitors (Connecticut and New York) playing in a game at Madison Square Garden.
That would be New York, right?
That picture covered almost a third of the page. And the article about that game? Give me two paragraphs and two paragraphs only.
Oh, but that picture has a former Georgetown player in it.
Big deal. That was so last year.
I had to take several looks. Whatsis? It made no sense. No picture of the Mystics? What is going on? They did play at Verizon, didn't they?
I suppose WAPO:
1. Deems the Mystics too unimportant to show on the sports pages. So it relies on the wire services for photos of...competitors? Or...
2. Left the page in the hands of an 16-year-old intern (no pay). Or...
3. Is so broke it has no money for wire service photos of the Mystics. Or...
4. Was so captivated by the NHL and the World Cup it forgot about the rest of sports.
5. All of the above?
Hey, WAPO editors, it is 2014, not 1914.
Next up for the Mystics: Atlanta, Verizon, 4 p.m., Father's Day, June 15. Take your camera.