Given last week’s news out of New Jersey — that corruption scheme, per today’s New York Times, “which involved three mayors, two State Assembly members and five rabbis,” and, as TPM’s Zachary Roth summarizes it today, involves “Apple Jacks, Prada, and Kidney Trafficking” — the Times today wonders “why” the Garden State experienced this “fresh wave” of corruption, “why” New Jersey is such “fertile ground for graft.”
“The answer,” the Times tells us, “has as many nuances as corruption itself,” nuances including: a building boom having flooded Jersey towns with development dollars and wealthy developers seeking waivers and permits; the “firm hold” Democrats have on local politics “turning most elections into sleepy coronations;” and that “the state’s news organizations, once vigorous watchdogs, have been decimated by a deep industry downturn.”
So writes the Times’s Michael Barbaro, (New York) City Hall reporter for the (New York) City desk, in a piece for the Times’s “New York” section. Because, of course, not only have “the [Garden] state’s news organizations… been decimated,” but the Jersey coverage of a major news organization in a next-door state has also experienced…shrinkage.
Back in January, I blogged about a Times editorial declaring now a “relaxing time to hold public office” in New Jersey (prescient, that) on account of the “sour” economy’s “choking” effect on “local newsgathering.” In that editorial, I noted, “readers got numbers and details for staff cuts at a host of [regional] publications but, of the Times itself, only that its ‘regional coverage has been reduced, too.’” But at least that piece — unlike today’s — acknowledged, if in passing, its own “reductions” (which, for the record, include the “emptying out” of both of its Jersey bureaus, Trenton and Newark, and, more recently, eliminating its weekly, stand-alone “New Jersey” section.)
UPDATE: I see the Times web site is hosting one of its “Room For Debate” discussions on the topic of “What’s Up With New Jersey [and Corruption]?” Lots of answers suggested —history, culture, arrogance, more municipalities than California!— but “decimated” news organizations doesn’t come up.
The Times identifies one of the online debaters, Richard Benfield, as someone who “has written about New Jersey politics and government for more than 40 years” and “until early this year… was a member of The Times’ editorial board and wrote editorials about New Jersey.” And now? Does anyone do that for the Times now?

I'm not authorized to speak for them, and in commenting here speak only for myself, but the North Jersey Media Group (The Record, The Herald-News), where I work, is pursuing a potentially fruitful restructuring in response to shrinking resources.
Namely, they are more tightly integrating super-local reporting from their 40+ community weeklies into their flagship northjersey.com website, which is functioning more and more like a network or confederacy of local papers than a regional monolith.
In my experience, reporters at our local weeklies actually have better access to borough halls, zoning boards, partisan orgs, unions etc. than do the local beat writers for the flagship papers. The local guys have just spent way more face-time, and thus have better relationships with, their sources. With just a fraction of their resources and the advent of instant web-publishing, NJMG weeklies are scooping their big-brothers at the Record and the Herald News as often as they are being scooped on stuff like this. I wouldn't be surprised if the same held for the Star-Ledger and its sister papers.
#1 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 06:13 PM