1. These local papers did not miss the boat. They cater to their strengths and to reader’s interest base. Our local paper, innundated with letters to the editors at election time, put out a statement that the letters they chose to publish would be prioritized based on their relevance to local issues and elections.

2. They would have nothing significant to report on about the presidential election that the larger area paper would not already have. They would likely just print whatever the AP came up with.

3. In most aspects of your daily life, what goes on with your local government affects you far more than state or federal, so for some, the outcome of of these elections had way for significance than the presidential election that everyone could call the winner of months ago.

4. This election, while significant, is not on par with Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, or JFK’s assassination, or putting a man on the moon. And even then, because of these paper’s focus, it is not the most significant thing they have to report.

It might actually indicate something if we could see these papers coverage of the 2004 election (assuming they were run the same as they are now.)

I would also like to know the extent of your experience in the newspaper business.
Several people who have that experience have commented here, and I am more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this matter than you.

2. Local papers generate sales by differentiating themselves from the larger papers. The New Braunfel’s (TX) Herald Zeitung covers local high school basketball before it covers the San Antonio Spurs. Why? Because in every driveway with a Zeitung, there’s a SA Express-News sitting right next to it. These papers represent economics in action, not antiquated racism.

3. Very good article, David. I don’t believe it was your intention to rekindle the Rodney King riots here. It seems your only mistake was failing to give these papers the benefit of the doubt and posit an alternate motivation for the Obama “snubs.”

This piece smacks of the “look how stupid these small town hicks are” type of attitude that seems to be all the rage. I mean, sure, I understand the importance of the election — who doesn’t? It’s the leader of the free world! But the guy in charge of the local police, or the guy on the committee deciding whether a Wal-Mart is being built down the street, those elections really DO matter more to many people.

This seems like one of those articles that someone thought would be funny or interesting but ended up not actually finding enough material to MAKE it funny or interesting.

I’ll be willing to bet that the next day they “localized” the national election by asking people around town what they thought. Or they got lucky and discovered that Obama’s barber’s cousin lives in town and interviewed him. And the photographer took a picture of him holding a picture of his barber cousin shaking hands with Obama.

It’s not the election coverage by my former paper that I criticize as much as the coverage every other day of the year. This entry gives me hope that other people are looking at the front page news and saying “does anyone care about this crap?”

I feel panicky just thinking about the type of stories I had to do. It makes me glad I don’t work there anymore. (And amazed I lasted as long as I did.)

In their defense, some of these paper’s are up against their own lack of resources and early deadlines. I’m willing to bet the “crab” paper went to print before Tuesday. And many who don’t have the funds to get wire content won’t have pictures of Obama.

I can’t speak for the others, but my former paper is sure they are giving the readers what they want. If their assumption is wrong, the readers need to tell them.

I get ya, David, and I’m with ya. All the way over her in New Zealand, and both the national paper AND the local (Wellington) paper had Obama as the entire front page. We’re not even IN America!