We had the same thought as New York magazine when we saw this front-page New York Times story by Adam Nagourney on the abortive Hillary-Rudy Senate race of 2000: Didn’t Salon write that story yesterday?
Actually, the duelling pieces raise a broader issue. Given the pace of modern-day campaign coverage, and the sheer number of reporters, bloggers, and YouTube posters capable of providing up-to-the-minute reports from the trail, it obviously makes sense for The Times to shift toward using its resources to offer deeper, more in-depth coverage–like today’s front-pager–while using its blog to keep up with the daily back-and-forth. And that’s what it seems to have been doing this time around. But if these deeper pieces, too, are increasingly being done by alternative outlets, what, besides access to a broader readership, is The Times’ unique niche in its campaign coverage?
