The Santos/fraud situation is bad news for journalism on two grounds, but the Washington Post noticed only one of them.

The Post's coverage highlights Big Journalism's utter failure to do its job in a timely way even when a smaller news org had blown the whistle on some of Santos' lies weeks before the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/29/north-shore-leader-santos-scoop/

1/x

(Edited to remove errant apostrophe...)

A tiny paper broke the George Santos scandal but no one paid attention

The North Shore Leader was onto his lies months before he was elected in New York.

The Washington Post

That was bad enough. But there's another journalistic aspect to this situation that may be even worse.

The small news org that did cover the Santos deceit didn't have enough clout in its own community to make a difference.

There was a time in local journalism when coverage of (and scathing anti-Santos editorial about) the candidate's lies would have been enough to ensure his defeat.

2/x

As local news orgs shrink in reach and authority, their ability to help set a public agenda is shrinking, too.

The North Shore Leader did timely and important work on Santos and his lies. (Example: https://www.theleaderonline.com/single-post/santos-filings-now-claim-net-worth-of-11-million) It deserves major kudos for that.

But we should all be worried that local news has eroded to such a degree that even this kind of work can't make the difference it should.

3/x

Santos Filings Now Claim Net Worth of $11 Million

By Maureen Daly Controversial US congressional candidate George Santos has finally filed his Personal Financial Disclosure Report on September 6th - 20 months late - and he is claiming an inexplicable rise in his alleged net worth to $11 million.. Two years ago, in 2020, Santos' personal financial disclosures claimed that he had no assets over $5,000 - no bank accounts, no stock accounts, no real property. A net worth barely above "zero". And his income was only just over $50,000 for the pr

theleader

The rich and powerful people and institutions that journalism is supposed to hold to account are contemptuous of the craft, and of what remains of local news.

They know that even if a watchdog is around, the mutt can't bark loudly enough to be heard.

We have to figure out ways to bring malfeasance to the wider public, to help people know why they should care. Because if we don't, the rich and powerful will rob the rest of us blind -- and corrupt everything.

4/4

@dangillmor Good points as always, but have you read any of the Leader’s coverage? It’s a bit of a dumpster fire, and I wouldn’t blame people for not taking them too seriously. That is no excuse, however, for larger media ignoring what was a clear signal to dive in, especially since senior people at Newsday were among the paper’s readers.
@dankennedy_nu @dangillmor what about the Dems? Where was Robert Zimmerman’s campaign staff? What about DCCC staff? Surely they could have done something to push the story to the public and to the media outlets with more reach and clout than the Leader.
@mickeleh @dangillmor Yes to all this. There’s a long history of journalists depending on opposition research, and what Zimmerman came up with was reportedly uninteresting: Santos is a MAGA Trumper, blah blah blah. The media made assumptions (always a bad idea) that Santos had lost before, that he’d lose again, and that it wasn’t worth doing a story.
@dankennedy_nu @dangillmor Have you seen Steve Israel's piece in The Atlantic? Israel claims that the DCCC had done good oppo and gave it to Zimmerman but the press ignored it for the reason you mention. "This guy isn't going to win, so he's not a story." But that's just empty spin. Go back and look at the DCCC oppo—you're exactly right. It's all blah-blah-blah. Nothing about Santos's fabricated biography. Nothing about his questionable finances.
Everybody missed it.
https://dccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/George-Santos-Research-Book.pdf