As election approaches, some more belated scrutiny for Adams, even as local coverage diminishes (with WSJ shut-down of Greater NY section)

Eric Adams has faced less scrutiny than he deserves, I wrote in August 2018 for City & State, following up, in part, in February 2021 for the New York Daily News, regarding his spin after his "Go back to Iowa" comments.

Indeed, the politically deft Brooklyn Borough President took advantage of his bully pulpit and the general lack of journalistic firepower.

Now, as he leads the polls in the Democratic mayoral primary, consolidating union support and weaponizing identity politics (and, yes, appealing thanks to his inside/outside perspective on managing the police and tackling crime), Adams is finally getting some of that scrutiny.

Only it's a little late. Yes, both The City and the New York Times wrote about his dubious non-profit, and Politico, with an assist from some rival campaigns, raised questions about Adams' dubious decision to bunk at his Borough Hall office.

But early voting has already started, with the Democratic primary on June 22, and much of the mayoral race "narrative" is already baked in, with lots of money--thanks to both fundraising and also matching funds--reinforcing that.

The latest

So the latest articles should've appeared earlier, helping inform voters and also influencing questions and discussions at the candidates' debates.

Consider Adams’ Globetrotting Paid Off, from NYC News Service yesterday, which shows how "donations later flowed to Adams’ mayoral campaign from individuals associated with organizations in the immigrant communities he courted" with trips to Turkey, Azerbaijan and China.

Or, perhaps The Company Eric Adams Keeps, from New York magazine's David Freedlander yesterday:

“He just wasn’t a team player,” recalled one senior Senate aide. “In a way that’s true for everybody in politics, but you always got the sense that the thing Eric Adams cared most about was what was in it for Eric Adams.”

“There is a certain kind of New York politician for whom The Godfather is their favorite movie,” recalled one former colleague. “Eric Adams is one of those politicians.”

The article cites Adams's close relationship with Brooklyn lawyer Frank Carone, who, I should add, played a key role in the (ultimately unsuccessful) defense of the scofflaw nightclub Woodland, which Adams spuriously charged was a victim of racism.

And three headlines from The City: Eric Adams Failed to Disclose Co-Ownership of Brooklyn Co-op He Says He Gave Away to a Friend; Adams Faults ‘Good Friend’ for Co-op Ownership Confusion as Wiley Goes on Offensive; and Adams Dodges Gift Tax Questions on Brooklyn Co-op He Says He Gave Away to Friend.

That's not to say other candidates don't deserve scrutiny, like, say, Maya Wiley or even Shaun Donovan.

And neophyte, but initially high-polling candidate Andrew Yang surely deserved sunlight that unveiled his sketchy understanding of the city. However, as journalist Ross Barkan pointed out, 

Months of screaming ANYBODY BUT YANG has yielded progressives not much other than the rise of a couple of pro-REBNY, pro-cop candidates. The NGO left doesn't do introspection, but this could be the race to do it for!

— Ross Barkan (@RossBarkan) June 17, 2021

But Adams had spent years compiling a record, some of which could reasonably have been unearthed, some of which required real digging. (My coverage was triggered simply by a few episodes I'd witnessed.)

A diminishing press

There's an enormous gap between the amount of money, bolstered by matching funds, used to bolster the campaign narrataives, and the journalistic firepower available to scrutinize it. 

The New York Times, for example, covered the 35th District Council race in barely a few paragraphs (and is no longer endorsing in such Council races) while my lengthy coverage addressed mostly land-use matters, though there are of course other campaign issues.

Yes, glaring imbalance between the amount of $ (including public $, via matching funds) being spent on campaigns and the amount of $ available to fund journalism to cover it.
Thoughts @stevenwaldman? https://t.co/HdilviuQ9v

— Norman Oder (@AYReport) June 17, 2021

And inspired, today, by this: https://t.co/JRLWsxDKR4

— Jeff Coltin (@JCColtin) June 17, 2021

Maybe there's a solution.

It helps local news by amplifying the choices of consumers and small businesses, rather than having the government pick winners and losers. There are 3 major components: 2/7

— Steven Waldman (@stevenwaldman) June 16, 2021

That'll take time, though.