Content warning: #LocalNews, not #newspapers Click to open/close

Two thoughts on this: 1. The sadness of the George Santos affair, that no local journalist was around to even do the most basic background check on him - not once, but twice. And 2) politics is less partisans and more civil and more productive with our neighbors. When people think of politics as just what goes on among elites in DC, things gets worse https://theconversation.com/local-newspapers-can-help-reduce-polarization-with-opinion-pages-issues-158834

This is not correct. https://dankennedy.net/2022/12/23/a-long-island-weekly-had-the-goods-on-santos-several-weeks-before-election-day/

Good piece -- and I think it actually reinforces the point. (I don't give the Times the pass you do, they have 1,200 journalists and cover mayoral politics with glee, they prioritize prediction and other parts of politics)

If the point is that local news is dying, then the local weekly’s article contradicts it rather than reinforces it. Did you know, for instance, that there was good local coverage of the Flint water crisis? But no one paid attention until the national media swooped in. https://grist.org/article/the-goldman-prize-missed-the-black-heroes-of-flint-just-like-the-media-did/

Well, hmm. My point is that the loss of local reporting has a (demonstrated) negative impact on people's ability to get important information. In this case, a weekly outlet did some vetting - but other local media failed to do that or to pick up on it. I don't think it contradicts anything about the crisis in local news. And in fact supports my point that good local journalism and local newspapers aren't the same thing.

I really don’t mean to be rude, but this is horseshit. The information was there. It had nothing to do with the public’s access to it & everything to do with willfully ignoring it. Stop pretending giving people the information will get them to do the right thing.

147 Republicans VOTED against certifying the election because they wanted to, not because they were uninformed. Yes, we need local journalism, but that’s not the problem here.

Think we can stay civil (this isn't twitter, thank goodness).

My original post wasn't about #Santos. But looking at this in terms of the job of #journalists and #LocalNews (different from job of political parties), it seems most voters were in the dark about the candidate's background before they cast ballots. And the response to the post-election reporting shows that the information has had impact, and likely will have more, despite being late.

I’ve spent most of my academic career reporting on and writing about the local news crisis. I just don’t think this is a good example.

Getting back to our discussion, this @washingtonpost story on the small paper that reported on #Santos pre-election touches on connections to the loss of local news capacity:

https://wapo.st/3vsHIg2

Beyond numbers, it’s about using resources on reporting that might not offer immediate payoff (i.e. candidate vetting). I’ve seen outlets that used to claim elections as a franchise shift to barely covering them.