THanks for this -- very helpful. Also a reminder that the issues are much much more acute in smaller cities across America. Here in Denver, for example, none of the remaining (after Alden bought and decimated the Post) outlets have yet to dig deep into why the airport, the 11th largest in the country and a massive economic engine for the region, is so far over budget and so delayed with no end in sight. The general view is that the last Mayor of the city (the city oversees the airport) would not have won his third term if there had been any reporting on that issue. There wasn't, and he did. Just one example in one town.
Love how this paragraph is written: "The Times’s shortcomings here extend to the editorial page, which, in just the last two months has managed to announce that it will no longer endorse candidates for mayor, and then called for the incumbent Mayor to resign. If he followed that advice, a special election would ensue, on the outcome of which the Times would apparently have no editorial view."
I've watched Paul Bass and colleagues up in New Haven (www.newhavenindependent.org) realize the vision of continuously involved journalism. When the engagement is ongoing the long term effects are different. The stench around Adams was apparent from the earliest. Engagement with the issues and character of government is a habit and one that requires a daily practice. That's the only chance of preventing the growth of pathologies. We are now in a sustained cure effort, whereas that cliched ounce of prevention would have been so much better for the civic life.
The move away from metropolitan coverage belongs in the unofficial debate over The New York Times. It goes on the list of negatives, along with their intentionally naive horse-race political coverage (well documented by you and others). OTOH, it hit me while looking for Hurricane Milton coverage last night that the NYT website is now probably the best place to find breaking news. Reporters and videographers on the ground all over Florida. A much more coherent delivery of the information than CNN. (Thanks both to editorial judgment and 600-odd engineers). Also positive: The maintenance of deep coverage of science, the world, etc. So overall I continue to I think NYT is indispensable and worthy of my subscription. BUT when we see new outlets across the country running on a shoestring and committed to providing community coverage, I don't think it's too much to ask NYT to cover metro NY news. They're making a killing on puzzles and other add-ons because of the strength of their editorial brand, IMO. So live up to the editorial mission.
Might it also make sense for some of the good but under-resourced outlets to go narrower but deeper - i.e., be local ProPublica-type newsrooms? What if, for example, The City were to become a purely investigative shop?
"Reporting that uncovers wrongdoing, and journalism that merely shares with the public what government investigators have discovered." The fact that the latter is most of what I've read in recent months is evidence that local journalism in New York City has been in decline.
THanks for this -- very helpful. Also a reminder that the issues are much much more acute in smaller cities across America. Here in Denver, for example, none of the remaining (after Alden bought and decimated the Post) outlets have yet to dig deep into why the airport, the 11th largest in the country and a massive economic engine for the region, is so far over budget and so delayed with no end in sight. The general view is that the last Mayor of the city (the city oversees the airport) would not have won his third term if there had been any reporting on that issue. There wasn't, and he did. Just one example in one town.
Love how this paragraph is written: "The Times’s shortcomings here extend to the editorial page, which, in just the last two months has managed to announce that it will no longer endorse candidates for mayor, and then called for the incumbent Mayor to resign. If he followed that advice, a special election would ensue, on the outcome of which the Times would apparently have no editorial view."
Dick, another insightful column. Like the song might say: “If muni corruption can make it there, it can make it anywhere. “.
Good overview of where the situation is at on the ground, Dick.
On Watergate? I think among recent tomes, Garrett Graff has a very good one. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4681323345
Agree that Garrett’s book is the best yet written on the subject. Recommended it to another reader earlier this morning.
I've watched Paul Bass and colleagues up in New Haven (www.newhavenindependent.org) realize the vision of continuously involved journalism. When the engagement is ongoing the long term effects are different. The stench around Adams was apparent from the earliest. Engagement with the issues and character of government is a habit and one that requires a daily practice. That's the only chance of preventing the growth of pathologies. We are now in a sustained cure effort, whereas that cliched ounce of prevention would have been so much better for the civic life.
The move away from metropolitan coverage belongs in the unofficial debate over The New York Times. It goes on the list of negatives, along with their intentionally naive horse-race political coverage (well documented by you and others). OTOH, it hit me while looking for Hurricane Milton coverage last night that the NYT website is now probably the best place to find breaking news. Reporters and videographers on the ground all over Florida. A much more coherent delivery of the information than CNN. (Thanks both to editorial judgment and 600-odd engineers). Also positive: The maintenance of deep coverage of science, the world, etc. So overall I continue to I think NYT is indispensable and worthy of my subscription. BUT when we see new outlets across the country running on a shoestring and committed to providing community coverage, I don't think it's too much to ask NYT to cover metro NY news. They're making a killing on puzzles and other add-ons because of the strength of their editorial brand, IMO. So live up to the editorial mission.
Might it also make sense for some of the good but under-resourced outlets to go narrower but deeper - i.e., be local ProPublica-type newsrooms? What if, for example, The City were to become a purely investigative shop?
"Reporting that uncovers wrongdoing, and journalism that merely shares with the public what government investigators have discovered." The fact that the latter is most of what I've read in recent months is evidence that local journalism in New York City has been in decline.