“To me it’s a prioritization problem more than a resource problem,” Cook wrote. “Newspapers spend a lot of time covering and writing about events or meetings that readers could attend themselves. But ultimately it’s up to the individual reporter to dig and ask hard questions, and to use their experience covering government to draw connections and tell stories that have no other way of being told.”
The emphasis on priorities, too, is a valid point. The Blade may be too much of a hike from North Canton for the sort of down-the-road pursuit that unearthed the investigation, but more local papers like The Repository and Beacon Journal could have added this story to their “tickler file” and checked for periodic updates. As journalists are wont to say, this didn’t pass the smell test, so odds seemed high it might pique some kind of law enforcement interest.
Since they didn’t, it suggests that these papers have focused their remaining resources on narrowly local stories—a choice that has costs, but also in many ways makes sense in the current media landscape. Meanwhile, the fact that MacGillis uncovered the Ohio investigation and sparked a round of local coverage is a sign that for all of the industry turmoil, national political reporting remains pretty robust, and at times capable of reaching beyond the Beltway. (The New Republic in particular is now on firmer footing, and even looking to expand.) And we shouldn’t forget that the story that apparently prompted the investigation came from The Blade, which, like The Plain Dealer and a few others in Ohio, is a local paper that continues to provide strong politics coverage.
So while there are certainly worrying gaps and holes in contemporary politics coverage—and, as Oplinger of the Beacon Journal acknowledged, many newspapers are still “working through” how to make the most of their remaining resources—there are some silver linings to be found here. In the coming months, it will be up to reporters in the Buckeye State to make the most of what works in the current media landscape. An avalanche of money is coming our way, and the press is going to have to work hard—and work together—to sift through this heavily-funded bombast and help the public learn who these candidates really are.

The reason that local papers didn't cover this story is simple... Nobody cares!
Campaign finance regulation fall just behind mattress tag regulation and just above global warming in the hearts and minds of the average American.
Nobody really cares that some guy broke a campaign finance law. Murder? Yes. Rape? Sure. DUI with a car chase? Absolutely. Campaign finance violation? Not so much... Snooze O'rama!
This kind of thing happens all the time on both sides of the political aisle.
CJR and the liberals of the MSM are only hopping on this (non)story because (i) it involves Republicans, and (ii) it is in Ohio, where Obama need his lapdog journalist sycophants to help his futile bid for reelection.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 03:03 PM
A $1.1 billion 4-year return is amazing, given a market cap of roughly twice that.
If I were a shareholder, I'd like nothing better than to see the WaPo spin off the paper and focus on service.
Dead tree journalism is done. The content can be written by anyone who can type at an eighth grade reading level and published by anyone who has a computer or an iPad.
There's just too much competition for newsgathering and analysis and too many people are doing it for free, many of them well. And, of course, the cost of publishing has evaporated. A news operation can be had in a basement through a DSL line and an HD camcorder comes with every phone.
You can't compete against volunteers.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 03:44 PM
Sorry... Wrong thread.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jun 2012 at 03:46 PM
I think the concept that journalism is free of bias has now been disproved, and that conflict of interest will make readers trust said journalists less and less. We already have instances of entire radio or television stations purporting to present "fair and balanced" reporting while supporting pundits who use their positions to support one or the other party. When paper employees "pool" their contributions they only bring that conflict into focus. But, of course nobody cares about it, because the watchers' eye is on large corporate paper chains to maintain their objectivity. A small paper like The Blade would never count.
#4 Posted by T Moore, CJR on Mon 4 Jun 2012 at 02:23 PM