A Political Season Without the New York Times
Life without endorsements
And so another high profile election season has passed in New York City without the New York Times editorial board endorsing in any of the major races. Few, truthfully, have noticed. Ever since the Times announced it was no longer endorsing in local races, breaking with a tradition that had lasted many decades, if not longer, politically attuned folk like me have wondered what it all might mean. There was a time, not very long ago, when the Times editorial board might tell you who they thought should win in a City Council race. Now you are lucky if they dispatch a reporter to write on that race at all. The decision to not endorse in local contests—the Times still wants to tell their readers who they like in the next presidential contest—seemed to signal that the Paper of Record was not going to prioritize the local. This is, despite the protestations of the Times itself, mostly true. Ever since they abandoned the standalone Metro section in the newspaper, granular coverage of the city has faded away. This is not a reflection on the talent of the City Hall, political, and local reporters the Times employs. They are top notch. It’s more about choices management has made as the newspaper, unlike almost any in America, grows it profits. You do not open the New York Times to find out, each day, what is happening in New York City. For that, your best bet is the right-wing New York Post, Gothamist, The City Reporter, Hell Gate, and other local outlets trying to fill the gaps.
Does it actually matter that the Times editorial board is not endorsing anyone in the clashes between Claire Valdez and Antonio Reynoso, Brad Lander and Dan Goldman, and Darializa Avila Chevalier and Adriano Espaillat? Here’s a dull answer: yes it does, and no it doesn’t. Allow me, first, to admit I’ve long believed the idea of a newspaper editorial board backing a candidate with an unsigned editorial is an outdated and befuddling practice. I blame no media organization that refuses to do it. The average reader struggles to distinguish between a conventional column and an editorial. Publishing any writing that’s unsigned dodges accountability. Editorial boards tend to embody a corporatized groupthink. I rarely, if ever, turn to them for any sort of political guidance. And an especially lousy editorial can make life difficult for reporters on staff. I know this firsthand: I quit the Jared Kushner-owned New York Observer after they endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary in New York. It’s fine, then, the Times is not telling us who they prefer in any of the aforementioned races or the battle for the 12th District in Manhattan, the most Times-obsessed seat in America. Why should we care, really? For leftists, the end of local endorsements is an underrated boon. There is little chance the Times editorial board, which savaged Zohran Mamdani a year ago, was going to endorse Valdez or Avila Chevalier. In fact, they might have not only backed Reynoso and Espaillat but delivered stinging criticisms of their leftist rivals, who both lack the experience the editorial board prefers. Andrew Cuomo was not technically endorsed last year—it was year one of the no-endorsement policy—but he was effectively greenlit by the board, which was still somewhat enamored with the scandalous years he spent in government.
Still, it’s worth explaining why it’s not a good development for local democracy that the Times is no longer dragging candidates in front of its editorial board. There are several ways, I believe, the voter is losing out.
