Missing the Story

Can a city use its power of eminent domain in order to seize property and then turn it over to a private developer?  In Kelo vs. New London the Supreme Court ruled that it could, but by the time the case was finally decided in 2005 the private development project in question had already started to run out of steam.  Last week, in an ironic coda to the story, Pfizer, which the city of New London had hoped would build a headquarters building on the land, pulled out of New London completely.

Over at CJR, Ryan Chittum says this is a great story that the press completely whiffed on:

The Hartford Courant, fifty miles up the road, wrote a 900-word story the next day on Pfizer’s moves and barely mentioned the whole Supreme Court controversy that roiled the city and country for months. Neither did the Associated Press in a brief. The Wall Street Journal ran with 600-plus words on C3 and didn’t mention Kelo.

….Finally, today, the fourth day of the story, we have major papers covering the Kelo angle. The Daily News hits it, while The New York Times admirably puts its story —and it’s a good effort—on page one.

What took so long and why have other papers been missing on this? Are our institutional memories that short? Are we staffed that thin? Are we that disconnected from our readers?

Believe me, they remember Kelo.

I wonder about that.  Sure, lots of political junkies remember Kelo, but I’ll bet that something like 99% of the country couldn’t distinguish it from a brand of corn syrup.  Nor do they care about the town of New London, or about Pfizer, or even about the eminent domain issue in question.  The facts of the case make it an interesting topic for a feature story — hubris, irony, hard times, etc. — but in a straight news piece of a few hundred words I’m not really surprised the Supreme Court case didn’t get much of a mention.  After all, Suzette Kelo is no Michael Jackson.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.