Sorry, to those who are bored, to take my argument with Mr. Wonk to another post, but I think this is an important issue.
I believe the "free media" given to incumbent politicians during their terms, combined with a lack of similar attention to challengers (other than those with "interesting" backgrounds like KT), is in part responsible for the lack of competitive legislative and congressional elections. As responsible, if not more so, than imbalances in money and gerrymandering.
When I’ve had this discussion with journalists such as Ben Smith and Erik Engquist (the latter, unlike other news outlets, did write about my protest campaign for state assembly two years ago). Ben responded that it’s a dilemma since you want to be evenhanded but you also don’t want to waste the reader’s time with something that is not significant — like a challenger with no chance to win. Erik pointed out that you have to work to get the attention of reporters rather than just send literature and letters asking for an interview, as I did, and that there are other ways (community organizing, prior successes) to draw press attention.
Let’s get back to my argument with Mr. Wonk. He asserted that the relatively large amount of press coverage given to Suozzi in the Empire Zone was biased, given his low poll numbers. I asked about of press coverage in the 2000 to 2005 period for both men, each of who had substantial accomplishments, and the role that might have played in generating those poll numbers.
I went to the NY Times archive, and used a custom data range for a seach from 2000 to 2005. I searched for Eliot Spitzer and Eliot L. Spitzer, and got more mentions (3994) for Eliot Spitzer. I searched for Tom Suozzi, Thomas R. Suozzi, and Thomas Suozzi, and got the most mentions for Thomas Suozzi (792). I didn’t read the previews of the articles, but that’s the number of articles. The total is 4,786 articles.
Spitzer’s share is 83 percent. What was his poll lead over Suozzi again?
Well, correlation is not causality, but correlation there is.
Does this mean the Times prior coverage, which (with other news outlets) created a bigger reputation for Spitzer than for Suozzi, was biased or inappropriate? No. Both men did good, but Spitzer affected more people.
But given that it is the media that had a role in creating greater name recognition for Spitzer, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Times to balance this out by making an extra effort to call attention to Suozzi’s background and accomplishments as well, if that is what is going on.
What if I repeated ths experiment for local legislative races? Well, at the Times I probably wouldn’t find any coverage of the incumbent or challenger, unless the incumbent was indicted. What about community newspapers? Can’t search as easily as at the Times.
But reading community newspapers here in Brooklyn, I am treated to a steady diet of articles off press releases from incumbents, about some stupid "study" by some State Senator, or grant by some Asssemblymember of Congressperson. A grant of tax dollars I had paid. A grant they get to make as long as they vote yes on the budget without reading it.
In short, I agree with Mr. Wonk that press coverage is an issue, and I agree with Mr. Smith and Mr. Engquist that it is a difficult one for the press. But I hold to my position — the relative amount of free media given to incumbents vs. challengers is a central reason, more central than campaign finance or gerrymandering, for the lack of competitive elections. After all, the press is considered a more objective arbitor of who or what is important than commercials financed by campaign contributors.
And the lack of press coverage of challengers is a reason so few people run. The odds of success for a challenger are low, so careerists wait for open seats. The lack of press attention to challengers takes away the incentive to run, as I did, to speak one’s piece, the only incentive left for a very difficult task.