- Obama Promises Direct Aid to Cities to El Nutter
- The "rolling closures" for this week
- Injustice in Housing is a Life or Death Matter
- The library: a recession sanctuary?
- Nutter should get credit where credit's due
- Thursday Counter-Protest at "We Stand with Israel" Rally
- This Saturday: hearing of Mayor's Task force on Ethics
- Why do we fund this?
- ABC debuts "Homeland Security USA"
- Library Closings: They Have Never Really Been About The Budget Crisis
Dear Tom Fitzgerald, Catherine Lucey, Patrick Kerkstra, et. al
Submitted by Dan U-A on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 8:53pm.
Dear Tom Fitzgerald, Patrick Kerkstra, Catherine Lucey, and the rest of the reporters who covered the Mayor's race:
I just want to say thanks for the coverage of the Mayoral race. It was not perfect, and there wasn't enough coverage of the rest of the City races, but, you for the most part did focus on real issues. Your job was made easier by the the fact that Nutter-Fattah-Evans endlessly talked about policies, but you still focused on them. I mean, the biggest back and forth was on things like "can the City lease the airport."
Why do I bring this up now? Because I am watching the national presidential race, and am stunned at how terrible the national media is. Case in point- John Edwards is currently going around to poverty stricken areas of the Country. Today, he was touring foreclosure stricken areas of Cleveland. (He should have come here.) And what is the media reporting on?
His haircut. Over and over and over.
It is surely not just Edwards; I am sure all the campaigns have instances of this. And, we all know their coverage of Iraq and the Bush spin was, and is, largely shameful.
Seeing it unfold, day after day, makes me appreciate that at least for the most part, our election was about issues, and so was your coverage.
Thanks again,
Dan
PS- Here is the thing though. You set a standard by examining a lot of these issues and policy papers that candidates put out. Now, when the Mayor and City Council proposes new laws, let's do the same. OK? You can start by covering Philly for Change's legacy project.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Very good points, all
You're right, there was a lot of excellent coverage during the mayoral race. The whole Great Expectations endeavor really helped encourage citizen involvement with the campaigns as well--I myself attended the debate they staged between Dicicco and Anastasio.
Dare I say it? I was VERY concerned when Brian Tierney took over, but I have to admit I've been cautiously impressed so far, from the local and national coverage, to most of the endorsements last fall. Homegrown reporting and judicious use of McClatchy and NYT syndication has so far been pretty decent, even to my lefty biases.
Agreed
I was rather surprised by the 'rise of a hard-right newspaper' thread that surfaced here a little while back, since that wasn't at all my take on the Inky or PDN since the PMH buyout. Overall, I have to say that they've remained perfectly moderate-liberal in their leanings. That might seem right-wing in a town which has a pretty significant liberal tilt, but it's certainly not the Washington Times or New York Daily News.
-Z
I Have Some Stupid Questions...
and I hope I can get some stupid answers.
1. I understand that compared to national politics, local reporters did well, but do you really think that issues were talked about fully? I've found tremendously few voters in the city aware of the full extent of Nutter's Code 10 emergency beyond stop-and-frisk; few voters aware of Brady's faith-based-initiative pseudo-proposals; few voters who could tell me for what OARC stands. And these are not people I think of as ignorant, just people who only use the newspaper to decide how their votes will go. National coverage is just such a low standard to exceed that I don't want to see too many people pleased with local coverage.
2. What exactly has Philly for Change done to warrant attention? I see from their website that they're taking credit for Nutter's victory, but the "What We've Done" section is "Coming soon." I assume that means that they'll put it up soon, not that they'll actually do something soon, right? Right?
different view
My view of the local media's coverage of the Mayor's race is different than Dan. Certainly, I think the issues could have been covered better and there were some questions about objectivity and depth of reporting. However, on the whole, compared to past elections, the quality of issue-based coverage was superior.
Again, how much of this was due to reporters, and how much was due to candidates is open for debate.
I think Dan's point though is that at the national level we should strive for better.
As for Philly for Change, I am not sure what your point is. PFC is an all volunteer group, and like all volunteer groups, websites don't get updated as much as they should. Now, I was not a Nutter supporter, as I worked for Chaka Fattah, but PFC did endorse him and did what they could to help elect him. That's what grassroots political groups do.
Softball
I'm not contesting that. I'm just questioning why PFC should be a more notable subject for coverage than groups in Philly that are underreported. Local Philly media covers the groups it identifies with moreso than the groups which do the most, just as YoungPhillyPolitics pushes coverage of PFC because of its connections to the group more than it does for, say, Men United for a Better Philadelphia.
I wanted to back up my impression of PFC with cold hard facts, and all of the outside coverage of PFC seems enthralled with its ideas rather than its actual accomplishments. I just figured that if anyone would tell me some good stuff about the group, it would be PFC's website. So I repeat: what has PFC done?
I do not think that a group
I do not think that a group like PfC should be covered anymore than say, Men United. I would just like policies that all of these groups suggest and propose to get more substantive coverage. I know more about PfC and their plans, because I am a member.