The New York Times Abandons Local Politics: A Sign of the Times?

In a surprising move, the New York Times has announced that it will no longer endorse local candidates for office, while still maintaining its endorsement power on the national stage. This decision, which may seem insignificant at first glance, is actually a reflection of the broader challenges facing local news coverage and the potential consequences for even the largest publications. The Times' retreat from local endorsements might be linked to its earlier decision to reduce its metro beat in favor of global stories. While the paper may believe that focusing on 'larger, more consequential themes' is the way forward, this perspective overlooks the importance of on-the-ground reporting and direct contact with sources in breaking big stories. The consequences of this dismissive attitude towards local matters can be seen in the recent political history of New York, with a governor resigning under fire, and several other high-ranking officials convicted of crimes and forced out of office. Moreover, the Times' decision to ignore local developments might also explain why journalists often appear to be behind the curve when it comes to movements that challenge the status quo. The economic factors driving the move away from local coverage are undeniable, with local newspapers dying off at alarming rates. However, the cost of ignoring local coverage goes beyond the impact on communities. For a paper that prides itself on uncovering deep stories, there is a real cost to skimping on local beats.