I appreciate this post, particularly as someone who both writes local coverage in New Mexico (https://nmindepth.com/author/ted-alcorn) and then turns around and tries to pitch national stories with a local anchor.
Where I am a local, I rarely expect national reporters to accurately grasp the contours at least as we see them close up. The character of local politicians always feels particularly misconstrued. But local coverage does sometimes miss how the particulars of our experience reflect national trends and factors we may be unaware of.
The irony here is that New York Times coverage of your district *is* local… My guess is there is a higher concentration of New York Times editors in that district than any other in the country? Which suggests that either the editors aren’t in touch with what’s going on in their own neighborhood, or they’re just too driven to tell a simple story in defiance of more complicated facts.
In that dashboard I built of New york Times coverage, I recently added a future to extract from each state the “recurring themes” there that outstrip in proportion the topic’s coverage nationally. It’s a pretty intriguing glimpse into how New York Times looks at other states around the country (and how they feel looked at, no doubt). Click a state name here and you’ll see: https://tedalcorn.github.io/nyt/#tab=states
Thanks for this. And do want to acknowledge the irony that the newsrooms of both the Times and the Journal are squarely in the.middle of the district. Both, of course, have mostly renounced local coverage.
What if, in, say, graf 14, the NYT piece had issued a non-disclaimer disclaimer such as “While there is no hard evidence to suggest that AI is top of mind for voters…” — would that take the edge off your critique or would you have said, then why is this even a story?
The latter, I think. Or you could re-craft the piece to be about political wars between OpenAI and Anthropic, and note that one theater is local elections, even if there’s little evidence of voter concern.
Thanks for this, Dick, a thoughtful piece as always. I agree that press coverage focuses (as is drearily common) much less on issues than we need it to. But, as a fellow resident of the district, I would say that AI figures more prominently in the race than you suggest. In the campaign literature, both for and against Bores, it's been central, and also in discussions among folks I know. AI is a potent and timely topic, one that Bores has played a prominent leadership role in regulating, in Albany. I'd say this makes it an inevitable focus of the race. Like you, I'm undecided. But this issue will be a key determinant for me and (I'm guessing) for many others.
I’m not a resident of the district, but from what I’m picking up in the political press and my own life and experience in this district (which is as about as different from Manhattan as is possible) is that AI, AIPAC and data centers are all becoming sleeper issues. They may not be the top concerns, but they are all representative of big money and disconnect between voters and their representatives. Obviously, AIPAC is a separate animal, but it is becoming a kind of litmus test and stalking horse for members answering to groups, not constituents.
Thanks for this. Just a note for anyone not familiar with this area that data centers, which are surely becoming an issue in many places, won’t ever be one here. There’s essentially no vacant land, and real estate prices are very high.
Of course. An argument could be made that data centers and AI and tech bros are in some ways all one issue, or part of the same issue. Follow the money, and the trails lead to the same people. Also, officials are trying to claim national security to push through tax breaks for data centers and get Supreme Court protection for anything and everything they do. Nice work if you can get it.
Thanks. You are, once again, at least mostly right. As a sometime resident of this district, there's no indication AI is a major issue. On the other hand Politico and others have made a strong case that it is making big investments elsewhere and is becoming a national player worth watching.
I appreciate this post, particularly as someone who both writes local coverage in New Mexico (https://nmindepth.com/author/ted-alcorn) and then turns around and tries to pitch national stories with a local anchor.
Where I am a local, I rarely expect national reporters to accurately grasp the contours at least as we see them close up. The character of local politicians always feels particularly misconstrued. But local coverage does sometimes miss how the particulars of our experience reflect national trends and factors we may be unaware of.
The irony here is that New York Times coverage of your district *is* local… My guess is there is a higher concentration of New York Times editors in that district than any other in the country? Which suggests that either the editors aren’t in touch with what’s going on in their own neighborhood, or they’re just too driven to tell a simple story in defiance of more complicated facts.
In that dashboard I built of New york Times coverage, I recently added a future to extract from each state the “recurring themes” there that outstrip in proportion the topic’s coverage nationally. It’s a pretty intriguing glimpse into how New York Times looks at other states around the country (and how they feel looked at, no doubt). Click a state name here and you’ll see: https://tedalcorn.github.io/nyt/#tab=states
Thanks for this. And do want to acknowledge the irony that the newsrooms of both the Times and the Journal are squarely in the.middle of the district. Both, of course, have mostly renounced local coverage.
For those keeping score at home, the New Yorker joins the parade of news orgs framing the campaign as an AI “proxy battle”:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/how-a-congressional-primary-became-a-proxy-battle-over-ai
What if, in, say, graf 14, the NYT piece had issued a non-disclaimer disclaimer such as “While there is no hard evidence to suggest that AI is top of mind for voters…” — would that take the edge off your critique or would you have said, then why is this even a story?
The latter, I think. Or you could re-craft the piece to be about political wars between OpenAI and Anthropic, and note that one theater is local elections, even if there’s little evidence of voter concern.
Thanks for this, Dick, a thoughtful piece as always. I agree that press coverage focuses (as is drearily common) much less on issues than we need it to. But, as a fellow resident of the district, I would say that AI figures more prominently in the race than you suggest. In the campaign literature, both for and against Bores, it's been central, and also in discussions among folks I know. AI is a potent and timely topic, one that Bores has played a prominent leadership role in regulating, in Albany. I'd say this makes it an inevitable focus of the race. Like you, I'm undecided. But this issue will be a key determinant for me and (I'm guessing) for many others.
I’m not a resident of the district, but from what I’m picking up in the political press and my own life and experience in this district (which is as about as different from Manhattan as is possible) is that AI, AIPAC and data centers are all becoming sleeper issues. They may not be the top concerns, but they are all representative of big money and disconnect between voters and their representatives. Obviously, AIPAC is a separate animal, but it is becoming a kind of litmus test and stalking horse for members answering to groups, not constituents.
Thanks for this. Just a note for anyone not familiar with this area that data centers, which are surely becoming an issue in many places, won’t ever be one here. There’s essentially no vacant land, and real estate prices are very high.
Of course. An argument could be made that data centers and AI and tech bros are in some ways all one issue, or part of the same issue. Follow the money, and the trails lead to the same people. Also, officials are trying to claim national security to push through tax breaks for data centers and get Supreme Court protection for anything and everything they do. Nice work if you can get it.
Thanks. You are, once again, at least mostly right. As a sometime resident of this district, there's no indication AI is a major issue. On the other hand Politico and others have made a strong case that it is making big investments elsewhere and is becoming a national player worth watching.