No #FakeNews here: DC and New York's transit systems face similar challenges. But thanks to cultural differences between the two cities, their newspapers portray those challenges very differently.

Newspaper recycle bins in a DC Metrorail station encourage riders to read the Washington Post and use transit (photo courtesy of Green Talk)

Washington D.C. and New York City boast two of the world’s best newspapers, brimming with elite journalists dedicated to reporting and analyzing the actions of those in power. Over the past year, the staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post have worked tirelessly to report on the latest developments as one of the most bizarre eras in the country’s political history has unfolded.

The two cities also boast large transit networks featuring extensive rail lines, countless bus routes, and vehicles packed with passengers, ensuring the country’s political and financial halls of power can function effectively. On any given day, the performance of the Washington Metro or New York City Subway likely plays a larger role in Post and Times readers’ quality of life than any tweet originating from the White House or Mar-a-Lago.  

Washington and New York’s transit systems may not look, feel, sound, or smell the same, but both serve as examples of the challenges our country’s infrastructure faces. Both regions struggle to reliably fund, operate, and maintain their systems, creating service reliability issues that make frustrated riders envious of the first class transit infrastructure residents of other developed countries enjoy.

The two papers’ approaches to transit coverage differ substantially, a dichotomy that in many ways reflects the two cities’ cultures. The Post takes a highly critical approach, treating WMATA and other area transit providers much as it treats embattled politicians and federal agencies. In contrast, the Times has chosen a more systemic approach, analyzing the reasons for and potential solutions to MTA’s struggles while emphasizing the substantial harm continued declines in subway and bus service would inflict on New York’s economy and quality of life.

As someone who supports transit and wants to see it improve, I find the Post’s coverage stress-inducing, but the Times’s coverage inspiring.

The Post: In a city of scandals, transit reporters strive to uncover controversy

During DC happy hour, downtown bars are abuzz with talk of the government’s latest scandals and gossip. Be it the ongoing Mueller investigation, Anthony Weiner’s illicit texts, or corruption in the Navy, there are plenty of juicy and entertaining discussion topics available to break the ice over beers with co-workers.

Washington Post reporters strive to be the first to discover the next stunning revelation that will become the talk of the town. The more prestigious the topic the paper assigns them to, the better their chances of attaining fame. David Fahrenthold, who once covered DC’s police department, rose through the ranks to receive a coveted assignment covering Donald Trump and won a Pulitzer Prize in 2017.

In the journalism world, a seat in the White House Press Room is much more prestigious than one at a WMATA board meeting. But given its bureaucratic flaws, the transit agency offers aspiring investigative reporters the opportunity to prove their worth and potentially move on to bigger things.

Thus, the Post treats area transit providers similarly to embattled politicians or scandal-plagued federal agencies, exposing every problem or mistake it can. The paper puts substantial effort into investigating reports of rogue vibrations near Metro stations, issues with radio reception in tunnels, and administrative issues at the WMATA inspector general’s office. Every broken air conditioner, carpet contract, and crime statistic fluctuation is covered in great detail.  

Occasionally, the paper takes things a step farther, publishing pieces implying that rail systems in auto-dominated metro areas such as Dallas and Atlanta are preferable to DC’s Metro. Other articles have implied that high-capacity transit routes are becoming outdated in a world of microtransit and app-based ride hailing. Such articles present the challenges WMATA faces not as fixable problems that threaten quality of life in the region, but instead as evidence supporting the perspective of venture capital-funded tech companies whose goals may not align with residents’ desire to get where they need to go.

The Times: A newspaper lays out the potential economic ramifications of a transit crisis

In contrast to DC’s culture of politics, which emphasizes networking and proving oneself to others, societal status in New York – a center of global finance – is largely determined by money. 

So, instead of striving to uncover scandal after scandal, Times journalists analyze New York MTA’s challenges through an economic lens, focusing on the system’s end product. They report on the wide-reaching impacts of unreliable transit service (such as effects on individuals’ earnings), describe the multi-faceted causes of the delays (particularly financial decisions politicians and officials have made), and explain the consequences the city could face if service continues to decline (for example, neighborhoods subway lines made prosperous could face substantial economic challenges).

In discussing MTA’s future, no Times article I have read has implied that recent trends such as app-based ride hailing and microtransit could replicate the combination of capacity, speed, and affordability reliable urban rail and bus service has offered for decades – in fact, the paper has highlighted the absurdity of this idea. Instead, articles illustrate MTA’s poor performance relative to other large transit systems and discuss potential solutions. The paper has described in detail why subway maintenance has lagged, explained why rail projects frequently suffer from bloated budgets, and thoughtfully analyzed funding mechanisms MTA could consider utilizing (such as value capture).

What can we learn from the Times?

First and foremost we should be proud that, in an era of alternative facts, both the Post and Times strive to report accurately and do not spin the news for sinister purposes.

But we should also be aware that the angle from which a media outlet chooses to cover a transit system can have unintended consequences. Based on the comment sections of articles I have read, most Times readers seem to come away with knowledge that transit is the nerve of any modern city’s economy, and that continued declines in system performance – a real possibility if corrective action is not taken soon – would cause substantial harm. Many Post readers, on the other hand, come away believing that WMATA – and, by extension, transit in the DC region – is too dysfunctional to repair.

While the Post’s approach is an effective method to hold corrupt politicians accountable, treating the area’s largest transit agency as a public enemy is much riskier. If an elected official is forced out of office, someone new (and ideally, more effective) will rise and take their place. But if a regional transit provider implodes, the traveling public will be left stranded and life will grind to a halt.

Thus, for the good of the city I live in, I hope Post reporters learn from the Times's excellent subway coverage and develop a more constructive approach, rather than continuing to search for flaws and negativity.