The Daily News wins local media coverage of the Mayor's race--easily
Oh, no, where am I? Detail from a super secret map for bewildered Times readers, circa 1995...
A reader has pointed out to me that the Daily News has done a far better job acknowledging the fact that there is indeed a Mayor's race than other media have, and I agree with this.
The Daily News sponsored a candidate forum two weekends ago. While I think this was too little too late to be of any benefit to the challenger candidates (candidate spreads should appear two months before a race, minimum, to be of any potential benefit to the race), the fact that it happened demonstrates that the paper is at least interested to do public interest due diligence on the candidates.
[This latter point is something the Los Angeles Times has catastrophically failed to do in this race, instead sneering that even interviewing them "veers towards pointlessness." It is instead currently pointlessly engaged with something that Thomas Bros. maps have been doing habitually since 1908--mapping city neighborhoods. (If you don't know what LA community you live in, please consult your Thomas Bros. Guide---they list them in colored twenty-four point light blue type with such wonderfully considered placement that that you can even tell what streets form the border of neighborhoods).]
The Daily News also covered MayorSam's and Joe Barrett's Great Debate which I attended yesterday. And while the paper didn't even list yours truly's website's url correctly, it did work in Debbie Lopez's name into its article as one of the panelists.
Also, the reader takes issue with me saying that the kind of coverage print media have brought to the Mayor's race is why they're losing subscribers daily. Well, we have lots of reasons as to why newspapers are losing readers, and I believe trepidation in covering civic matters such as the Mayor's race is an enormous one. However, again, the Times is far more guilty of this than the Daily News.
And the reader finds the suggestions made in the post, that the papers favor Villaraigosa, insulting. I think that's fair, and that the post should have said that the coverage of the race has favored Villaraigosa, and by a very wide margin, especially with all this abstract Sacto flotsam floating our way in the final two weeks of the campaign. The editorial boards themselves in fact may not---I don't know.
Mostly, electronic and print need to learn to work together better. We in electronic media already know the true value (slim) of page views alone. Print people generally know the value of restraint better than electronic media. Dialogs such as these are vital to the survival of both in the future.