Does covering the DNC make sense?

Very few locals will be out covering the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The representatives will include WJAR-TV's Bill Rappleye, RI's Future Matt Jerzyk, and Dan Yorke from WPRO. (The ProJo's coverage will come via DC staffer John Mulligan, and to the chargin of Matt and some other liberals, op-ed columnist Froma Harrop; the Phoenix is sending one of my Boston-based colleagues.)

One would think this historic convention will have its share of interesting stories. Yet Slate's Jack Shafer is calling for the media to boycott the event (h/t Romenesko):

A still better way to improve convention coverage would be to withdraw all reporters and force the curious to rely on a C-SPAN feed: Unless a brokered convention threatens to break out, these political gatherings tend to produce very little real news. Yet the networks, the newspapers, the magazines, and the Web sites continue to insist on sending battalions of reporters to sift for itsy specks of information. According to Forbes, 15,000 pressies are expected to attend each of the conventions. Slate, I'm embarrassed to admit, is sending a team of eight to Denver and six to St. Paul. Attention! Don Graham! We're spending your cash like it's Zimbabwean bank notes!

While your average political reporter doesn't think the conventions are a waste of time and resources, he's likely to agree that nothing very newsworthy actually happens at them. Oh, he may filibuster about how a looming platform battle promises to produce fissures in the party. But if you observe that platforms are written to be ignored by the candidate, he'll drop his point. Or he may argue that meeting all the important politicos up close at the convention will produce future news dividends. But he'll pout if you ask him whether the intimacy justifies the expense, which can easily exceed $3,000 per reporter for a bare-bones visit. (A single seat in the designated workspace area at a convention can cost more than $1,000, and an Internet connection is $850. Snacks purchased at the convention make ballpark food look affordable.)

Here's what the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut had to say when asked about the concept during a chat on her newspaper's Web site:

I may take a beating for this from my colleagues, but I have to agree somewhat. My feeling is that in tough economic times -- when some papers, though mercifully not so much at the Post, are closing down whole bureaus and covering foreign news less -- we should send everyone out with laptops to find actual news rather than to hang out at a canned event. That said, this is the first convention since I started covering presidential campaigns (which was three cycles ago) when the Democratic convention promised to yield real news. We don't know how Clintons' supporters will respond in Denver, and the speeches alone will be really historic.