High profile as they are, Lopez’s columns have been just an adjunct to the paper’s sustained news coverage of the election, which has included a steady series of deep stories about the role of moneyed interests, particularly public employee unions, in the race. Then there’s the 44-column-inch, page-one piece that explained, in detail, the roots of the continuing financial disaster at City Hall. Reported and written by veteran city watchdog David Zahniser, projects reporter Jessica Garrison, and national correspondent Ralph Vartabedian, the article looked at decisions to hire hundreds of police officers and give 20,000 or so city workers 25 percent pay raises over five years, just before the Great Recession began—and at the role three mayoral candidates, including front-runners Garcetti and Greuel, played in those decisions.
This large archive of follow-the-money reportage has been extended on the Web with a spreadsheet tracking outside expenditures in the mayoral campaign. Then there’s the data desk’s webpage on the race, which offers an interactive map that compares voting patterns in this and prior city elections, as well as features that spell out candidates’ positions in both text and video formats.
Though it may be consistent with the paper’s legacy, the Times’s heavy investment in local elections runs against broader trends across the media industry. A recent Pew Research Center report, for example, notes that politics coverage on local TV newscasts has virtually disappeared. And as Steve Waldman wrote this week for CJR, for all the virtues of the digital news ecosystem, local accountability journalism is imperiled in many markets.
The Times has certainly not been immune to financial retrenchment, with cutbacks reducing the editorial head count from, by Lopez’s reckoning, about 1,200 when he came to the paper 12 years ago to roughly half that number today. Connell acknowledges that he faced competition for resources when planning to cover this year’s election. But, Connell says, the tradition of taking reporters from the presidential campaign (where the Times also did strong work, Walter Shapiro wrote for CJR) and throwing them into coverage of the mayor’s race remains alive and well. Although Connell had to start coverage a bit later than he wished, by the start of the year, the resources for full coverage were in place.
The question of how long those old traditions will last—and whether such heavy staffing of local elections can continue—remains open. The choice between covering local elections with teams of veteran journalists and running less expensive but perhaps more clickable fare is one that every newsroom in the country faces. For every civic-minded voter who’s smiling at the Times’s wall-to-wall election coverage, there may be—in fact, probably are—dozens of readers (or even worse, non-readers) wondering what’s up with all the stories about these Garcetti and Greuel characters, whoever they are. And there is no denying that coverage as comprehensive as the Times’s will almost inevitably produce (and this year, has produced) its share of dull recaps of debates in which almost nothing new was debated.
For now, though, the Times’s focus is clear: Cover the election, hard, and make the decisions based on editorial judgment and journalistic values. The Web is explicitly included when coverage is planned; Connell noted that he can reach out “and almost touch” the data desk from his work station, making it easy to sort out collaborations “without a lot of scheduled meetings.” But though he’s the assigning editor for election coverage, Web traffic hasn’t been a significant part of the discussion at Connell’s level. When I asked how the Times’s election coverage has performed online, he said, “I can sit here and tell you I honestly don’t know. I’m more of an old-school content guy.”