Yesterday, my post on the relationship between the downsizing of local newsrooms and the success of the talented Mr. Santos generated a lot of discussion in the comment thread. This morning a few bits of commentary popped up in my slowly dying Twitter feeds that are worth sharing.
#1 Not all news organizations missed this story
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo pointed out that one news publication did, in fact, uncover a lot of issues in Santos’s past. The paper, The North Shore Leader, is taking a well-deserved victory lap for catching a story that other news outlets missed.
So why did this small paper’s important story get no traction? A sad reality is that, due to the reduction in the size of newsrooms, rather than relying on their own investigative journalism, modern news organizations typically rely on the work of others to identify “newsworthy” stories. Once that’s happened, in this case via the December 19th New York Times story, then they will be willing to invest resources to do some investigations.
Of course, in order for that to happen, someone from the newsroom needs to have seen the initial article. And that’s the issue here: The North Shore Leader is a once-a-week “community” newspaper that focuses on the North Shore of Long Island. This type of newspaper has been a staple of smaller communities and counties for years. These papers are better known for “feel good” community stories, restaurant openings and closings, covering local government meetings, and basically local advertising than anything else. They are not supposed to break news. And so we discover that if a story is filed and no one “important” reads it, it doesn’t make a sound.
#2 Reflections on the Democrat’s and opposition research
There were a LOT of discussions in the comments thread about opposition research. How could this possibly have been missed?! My initial reaction was similiar to what sometimes OTB commenter and legitimate rocket scientist (or at least astronomer) Hal_9000 shared on Twitter:
However, this morning I saw a different take from a political researcher that points to a broader structural issue. Former Democratic party researcher Judd Legum posted the following thread:
The entire thread is worth a read and you can find it collected on ThreadReader here. Since Legum tweeted this out, a number of other researchers and pollsters have affirmed Legum’s general argument:
While I am by profession a researcher, this isn’t my area of expertise. So I cannot speak to the validity of these arguments. My gut is that they are most likely accurate, especially the bias towards polling over opposition research. That mirrors a general bias in other “knowledge” fields towards quantitative research over qualitative research that I’ve encountered throughout my career.
