June 28, 2004

RATING THE PRESS.

By James Eugene*

One of the local papers, the New York Post, likes taking potshots at its competitors, primarily the New York Times and the Daily News, for what the Post views as their inaccuracies. The New York City papers are, in themselves, an amazing beast. When I read other papers from other locales (particular ones where there is only one major paper), I am amazed at the dryness of their papers. The focus on, gasp, facts in a story without the editorial analysis that so often seems to be part of our City's fair press.

When I was in government, one of the things I always looked for was fairness and accuracy. I will give each paper credit. They all feel an obligation to get a quotation from both sides of an issue, even if the issue has multiple sides (which of course means the paper will often miss many of the sides of an issue).

Since this is an opinion column (and any facts you see are always 100% fail safe accurate, cough), you will now get my take on the press that is the New York City papers.

• The New York Times. If local coverage is indicative of the Times other coverage, well I guess we can use this paper for fish and chips. I am not saying that the Times is the worst, it is just that I worry about the gospel-like quality some people place on it. People after all read the New York Post, but even its most avid fans do not take it as truth. The Times on the other hand is viewed by many New Yorkers as prestigious. Well, I hope they are skipping the local pages. The Times misses so many facts, so many points and gets so much wrong, that I gather that 50% of any given article is accurate and in context. And that scares me. What also scares me is that articles have too much editorial content masquerading as fact. If the Times is as journalistically true as it pretends to be, it should eliminate that tendency. The only thing I can say for its reporters is that their writing is stronger than the other dailies, otherwise, the Times is average at best and gets a "C".
• The New York Post. If the Times is 50% accurate, than the Post is 20% accurate…. But oh that 20%! When I was in government you read the Post for that 20% because one in five articles was 100% accurate and devastating and you need to read those articles to get leads. Sure, the other four articles were completely useless, but when the Post hits, it hits good. Too bad you need to read some real worthless junk to get to those pieces. And if the Times has too much editorial content, the Post is the master of editorial content masquerading as facts. In fact, every Post article is editorial content. That is why the Post gets a "D".
• The Daily News. Since I left government, the News has actually begun to focus more resources on City government and has improved the content and accuracy of its articles. It is just that reading their stories is like eating white bread… you get some filler, but ultimately the taste is too boring and you need to go somewhere else to get some taste. In my government days, it did not run enough stories to comment on their accuracy or editorial content. The News actually is closer to being the bland, just the facts, articles that dominate the journalistic fronts in other towns. And the News deals in areas that other papers do not (labor, etc…). But blandness kills it. The News gets a "C".
• New York Newsday. When I was in government, New York Newsday for a few years was the best consistent local reporting I had ever seen. But it could not make a go as New York City's fourth paper and cut back. Now, while it spends sometime on City government, its emphasis has shifted back to Long Island. Too bad, because it had great reporters, who were good writers and knew their topics very well (for example, Clara Hemphill, a reporter who covered education, later wrote on excellent book for parents on how to actually navigate the New York City school system). Newsday's reporting on local communities was also top-notch. Now it is a tier down from where it was. If it were to ever refocus on New York City, it would get an "A", but instead, it only now merits a "B-".
• The Staten Island Advance. A quirky paper. Sometimes very good, sometimes so provincial you want to scream. The writing is okay, the accuracy can be spotty, but no worse than the Gray Old Lady (the Times for you "youngins"). I must confess I consider reading the Advance a dirty pleasure, of which I am neither embarrassed nor proud. It has editorial content in its articles, but it's like reading a non-partisan New York Post for middle America. And Staten Island is as close to middle America as you get. The Advance merits a "C+".
• Crain's New York Business. A business paper? Yes, but for what's out there it covers the City political life as well as any paper. Yes, it has a business perspective, but in that politics touches business, it does an excellent job of reporting. It is nice to have one paper, as well, that realizes local news is not all politically bent. And New York is a business town. Taken with its business bent as a given, it's reporting is more accurate than most, and it does limited editorializing to its audience except on the editorial pages. Crain's thus gets our highest grade: a "B".

AM New York: Get real, it's an excuse for advertisements. Grade: "F".

I do not read the New York Observer enough to comment on it. What little I read is as unimpressive as the rest, but I will give it an "INCOMPLETE."

And of course, all my opinions are exactly gospel, because if I say it, it must be so.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.