Adrian OceguedaVerified account

Now you have to know that behind the scenes guys like @evenasmith look at this race and try to make a determination as to who is “viable”. They do this not because they want to be king makers although I am sure that plays some role in their decisions

(which are influenced by certain unconscious biases), but mainly because they want to maintain their perceived importance in the state media landscape. So, they only want to cover candidacies they deem as viable,

that they believe will have some level of success to maintain their own “perception” stature, which is a perfectly rational thing to do. Two years ago, in the gubernatorial race, this played out in their publication by creating the impression this was a two-person race

between @lupevaldez and @randrewwhite even though there were many more of us in that race. Again, most of what they covered was polls, fundraising, and color stories about Lupe’s background or Andrew’s father.

But consider that Lupe was sharing very little content, and what was shared was very light. In fact, many news endorsements pointed this out. Likewise, Andrew came out with a lot of policy proposals that were impractical and were called out such in editorial board meetings.

The point being the coverage wasn’t meant to advance policy differences, and this is where this coverage becomes both self-fulfilling and dangerous. First, understand most of the other local media took the same approach (@dallasnews, @houstonchron, @statesman, @expressnews).

If you only cover two (or a few) candidates, then what those candidates get is shallow but free coverage that serves to build their name and becomes the catalyst for a statewide primary echo chamber. Articles are written, candidates and supporters forward those articles,

those articles get posted on discussion boards and thus retweeted, competitive local reporters with limited budgets follow this reporting and believe this is the story line, so then they publish a similar line of coverage, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.