What the timing of the George Santos story says about the declining media
News outlets should have been expected to comb through a congressional candidate's record prior to an election when it was actionable for voters.
Thanks for reading the Weekly Dystopia! Researching and writing a newsletter takes time and effort. Please buy me a coffee if you want to support me to ensure the viability the newsletter.
Summary: The timing of the New York Times story on George Santos fabricating basic information about his record was too late to inform voters in his district. It’s the latest example of the media opting to chase narratives as opposed to scrutinizing candidates.
Look no further than the George Santos scandal to get a clear understanding about the declining state of journalism and media. The revelations the New York congressman-elect knowingly fabricated fundamental aspects of his record, including having a college education and past work at high-profile finance firms, is exactly the kind of information voters should have before they headed to the polls before Election Day — not one month later when options to keep him from power are more limited.
The New York Times, which first reported the string of untruths Santos made about his background just a few weeks ago, has found a rare way to get praise and condemnation at the same time. On one hand, the newspaper deserves credit for making those revelations public in accordance with the mission of journalism for transparency on public figures. The story is very comprehensive and shows a lot of hard work and dedication to research, both with domestic and international sources.
But it was too little, too late. Even if the Times was completely unaware of Santos' untruths until recently, the publication of the article after Election Day serves more as an albatross to hand around the necks of Republicans under their new majority in the U.S. House as opposed to actionable material.
As a journalist with more than two decades of experience, I understand the challenges in the profession and resource complaints. Everything in these revelations, however, is something reporters could have exposed prior to the election. Santos had been presenting himself as a college graduate with experience at prestigious financial institutions in the entirety of his time as a congressional candidate in not one, but two races. After all, prior to his victory this year, Santos ran unsuccessfully for a congressional seat in New York in the previous election.
I emailed questions on behalf of the Weekly Dystopia to the public affairs desk at the New York Times. My inquiries were 1) Why the newspaper published the article when it did; 2) When it first became aware of the discrepancies and when it first made the attempt to corroborate them; 3) Whether the end result of timing for the article prompted any re-evaluations of the approach to coverage; and
4) If any decisions were made about changes. I have yet to get a response.
Truthfully, I don't think the New York Times was sitting on this information until after the election. I have no evidence of that and trying to speculate on motivation for such a delay would be scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with a conspiracy theory.
I came across a blog post by Dan Kennedy, who writes about the state of news industry at the Media Nation, on the timing of revelations and saw he reached a similar conclusion it was a failure of the media. Kennedy suggests a couple reasons why, including the presumption Santos' opponent, Robert Zimmerman, would win the election. Other reasons Kennedy proposed were media organizations being stretched too thin without sufficient resources and no suggestion anything was untoward about Santos' resume.
From Media Nation:
It’s not pretty and, yes, it’s easy to say that the Times and other news outlets should have paid more attention to Santos and his apparently fake résumé before Election Day. But as the great poet Donald Rumsfeld once explained, there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The possibility that Santos might win, and that his record wouldn’t hold up to the most cursory examination, was an unknown unknown. The press can’t expose this sort of thing if it doesn’t know where to look.
That all makes sense, but I have trouble with these conclusions. For starters, the race for New York's 3rd congressional district was seen as a competitive race, despite some polls showing Zimmerman in the lead, and it was plausible for either the Democrat or Republican to win. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had included the race on its "red to blue" list, even though the newly created district had no incumbent. The race was also significantly important because it had implications not just for the single district, but control of Congress in a mid-term election.
Media resources being drawn too thin is also an unsatisfactory answer for me. An increasing number of citizen journalists, more traditional high-profile publications and community newspapers are out there, including those devoted to covering politics in New York. It's not that there's not enough of us out there. If the New York Times has the resources to cover the positive impact Sam Bankman-Fried made by bringing the wealth from his crypocurrency scams to the Bahamas, it could have looked more deeply into Santos’ record before the election.
The better conclusion, I think, is the state of media and journalism. We journalists are rewarded for finding angles to build on existing narratives rather than uncovering something off the beaten trail in the current cycle, or finding something contradictory to that narrative. After all, the existing narrative is shown to have demand in the public, while seeking to corroborate a resume in the event of discrepancies may end up simply be a wild goose chase. Additionally, editors who find their publications scooped have harsh reactions and encourage reporters to build on those existing stories, which in turn drives attention away from other issues.
I totally understand why there wasn't the incentive to look at Santos' record. An effort like that could be cumbersome and have resulted in nothing, or not enough for a major news story. At the same time, the media should have been expected to do that check. Combing through a congressional candidate's record in the event something is untrue is exactly what the public needs. Any reporter covering New York politics or congressional races have found the discrepancies in Santos' record had they bothered to check.
.There's one more player I think may have culpability: The research arms of the Democratic Party. I saw a recent news statement from the DCCC chiding Republicans for being aware Santos wasn't telling the truth and saying nothing, as reported in the New York Post. Republicans may have a degree of blame, but ultimately it's not their job to damage their own candidate. That's the role of the Democratic Party. The research arms of the Democratic National Committee are well-funded and expected to deliver this kind of information to the media and to the public.
I emailed the Democratic National Committee to ask them whether they knew about discrepancies in Santos’ record before the New York Times article. I haven't heard back. I'm sure Democrats want all the attention, justifiably so in many ways right now, on the Republican caught in making false statements and his later admission they were fabricated as opposed to the time when Democrats first learned about them.
The focus now will be on Santos and the fallout of these revelations, such as whether Republicans will allow him to be seated in Congress. That's appropriate given the nature of the untruths. But another dive into why we didn't hear about it until now is warranted. The reassessment for the media is exactly what the doctor ordered.
Just a note at the end: Please sign up to subscribe if you like what you’re reading at the Weekly Dystopia. Subscriptions for a limited time are completely free and adding your name to the mailing list would really help us a lot in getting past our launch phase: