FAIR has a new action alert out about the New York Times‘ snubbing the U.S. Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini. While the paper has given intensive coverage to numerous New Yorkers who thought about challenging appointed incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand–but in the end decided not to run–the Times has ignored Gillibrand’s most prominent actual rival in the Democratic primary, aside from one rather snarky profile that appeared in January. Click here to send a message to the Times–which you can post a copy of in the comments thread below.
Paper of Record? What about Jonathan Tasini?
Why are you denying the people of New York information about a viable candidate for Senate? Is this some kind of big brother patronization of your readership? Do you really want to be billed as an electoral gatekeeper rather than an honest newspaper?
How can we trust that other important information is not getting through to us, in New York or around the globe?
Linda Jansen
Seattle, WA
I am a daily online reader of the New York Times from Santa Barbara, California. Today I was alerted by the organization, FAIR, about your unfair lack of coverage of Senate candidate John Tasini. I’m very disappointed, and it causes me to question whether I’m getting the whole picture on ANY issue from your publication.
Mr. Hoyt,
Can you explain why the NY Times has falsely claimed that Senator Gillibrand is not being challenged in the election when in fact Jonathan Tasini is in fact running for that office?
Why has so much coverage been given to non-candidates, ones that never claimed to be running for that seat?
Does that fact that Jonathan Tasini successfully sued the New York Times allow a supposed standard bearer of fair and accurate journalism to censor him from the public? We’ve known the Roman emperors and Soviet rulers to practice Damnatio Memoriae. Why does the New York Times appear to be doing it?
Sincerely,
David Wilder
I’ve learned that you have been covering potential challengers to Kirsten Gillibrand but have avoided reporting on an actual candidate, Jonathan Tasini.
Whether or not I agree with Mr.Tasini’s positions is irrelevant to the fact that he is a declared candidate and your lack of coverage is inappropriate for a news source of your stature.
After having been made aware of the egregious omission of his candidacy, I’m glad I decided to hold off on my decision to start home delivery!
Therese Stiff
Mr. Hoyt,
Your failure to cover the candidacy of Jonathan Tasini is quite frankly worrisome. Blind speculation and unbalanced coverage of more corporately funded candidates who fallow the status-quo does nothing to advance our democracy.
In a world after the Citizens United case (even before) big money and corporate interest consistently trump real public discourse on legitimate issues. Instead we are force-fed talking points and answers to our questions that leave us with less clarity than before.
Jonathan Tasini has come out in favor of the expansion of public health care, and against the waste through two wars and their no-bid contracts, he has called for an increase in the minimum wage (which would help with welfare), and more rights and protections for everyday citizens who’s freedoms have been increasingly usurped and sold to the highest bidder.
The Times refusal to cover an actual candidate who garnered 17 percent of the primary vote in 2006 against Hillary Clinton–a much better known incumbent, and devote so much time to non-candidates is disheartening to say the least.
The Times, who has made an attempt to be centrist has drifted more and more toward the right in recent history, as has the definition of “centrist”. Progressive movements which garnered in the end of slavery, labor unions, social security, and other essential programs in today’s society has been treated more like conspiracy theories than the legitimate, proven, majority embraced arguments that they are.
I, as a citizen, call upon the Times to start running stories that concern the people and stop a practice that more closely resembles the Washington Post’s practice of selling stories and the ear’s of their “reporters” to the highest bidders though salons.
If you truly want to save journalism as we know it, or as the idea we hold it to be, then I implore you to start practicing it.
I sincerely thank you for your time,
Michael A Burger
It’s time to give Jonathan Tasini real coverage in the election campaign for Senator from the State of New York.
Candidate Jonathan Tasini is widely recognized for his “Working Life” blog.
He drew a healthy share of votes when he ran against Hillary Clinton.
He’s not some “fringe” candidate.
He’s the progressive candidate many of us are looking for.
You’re trashing your own reputation by choosing not to cover his campaign.
Clark,
Please investigate why the Times is giving so little space to Jonathan Tasini, an actual candidate in this year’s Senate race, running against incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrandan, while giving unusually broad coverage to non-candidates.
I am a new subscriber to the Times and would like to see the paper give fair and accurate reporting.
Len Hockley
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
It is a disservice to the entire country when major media censors candidates such as New York Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini. All the mainstream media do it, and that includes both TV and print.
I live in Minnesota and have known and appreciated Mr. Tasini’s ideas for years! Isn’t it time to give candidates (especially those not bankrolled by corporations and trade associations) a fair shake?
Part of the problem with our country is the homogeneity of our elected officials. They are, by and large, successful fundraisers and “party” soldiers but very few represent the best interest of citizens because they have been bought and paid for by special interests.
I hope the NYT will break this pattern and give more attention to intelligent politicians with ideas, even if they are lesser known and less well funded by lobbyists and the rich.
Elections have become too much of a horse race with the media focusing on and placing early bets on those that raise the most money and ignoring the rest. We need dialogue and opposing viewpoints early on in campaigns. We need to be exposed to shades of gray, not just more black and white (Republicans and Democrats poking jabs at each other). We can never change for the better if we keep putting roadblocks in front of those who don’t enter the race with a high profile.
Thank you.
Kathlyn Stone
We’ve been FAIR readers for years. We care deeply about FAIR’s efforts to keep us focused on what the media is doing regarding fairness & accuracy in reporting. The group’s latest effort, to show how your newspaper has ignored Jonathan Tasini’s senate campaign, is particularly upsetting.
Why? Because as a nation we are overly exposed to the FOX News version of reality. They are a blight on the public’s right to know. Your newspaper’s refusal to cover Tasini’s progressive campaign is something FOX must love.
Aside from that, how does your newspaper explain its’ coverage of those who aren’t running for the senate seat, and ignore the progressive candidate who is? Journalism is taking hits right and left, and deep in the pocket book as well. Maybe it has something to do with neglecting the basics, neglecting fairness, and taking the low road.
Fix this.
Mr Hoyt:
Do you have any explanation for why the Times has let Jonathan Tasini’s run for the Democratic nomination for Senate go virtually unmentioned when so much space has been given to non-candidates like Harold Ford, Mort Zuckerman, Dan Senor, and others? Is there some reason why the candidacy of a true progressive is not news fit to print? Might you find out? Might you let us know?
Thank you for your attention and whatever effort you might put forth.
Robert Lipton
Holyoke MA
Please investigate the reasons for omitting coverage of Jonathan Tasini’s candidacy for U.S. Senator from New York. The omission is a glaring one,
and does not support the Times’ reputation for balanced reporting.
Something seems to be wrong with your reporters: most recently, Raymond Hernandez. His Political Memo- “Question Remains: What Makes Gillibrand Scary?” ignores the candidate who has been running since last June for the Democratic nomination for the junior Senate seat that our unelected Governor handed to Gillibrand- Jonathan Tasini. How did Hernandez miss the fact that Tasini has been actively campaigning (and getting coverage in all sorts of other newspapers around the state) for months?
When N. R. Kleinfeld wrote in the Times about Tasini’s campaign for the Senate seat, Tasini was referred to as “the long shot”. Kleinfeld focused on the fact that “Mr. Tasini doesn’t own a car. His apartment in Washington Heights rents for less than $1,000. He rides a bike and the subway.” Are these reasons to dismiss or ignore his campaign?
It’s true that Tasini is not as wealthy as some of the people who chose to drop out of the race for Senate. It’s also true that he is more qualified to represent the people of New York than Ms. Gillibrand, or anyone else in the state. Tasini understands economic issues, foreign policy issues, trade and health care, and he can speak as intelligently (and with greater conviction) about all these issues as anyone in the US Senate.
If and when Tasini debates Gillibrand, voters will have a clear choice- between a courageous leader (Tasini) and a politician with no values other than her own aspirations (Ms. Gillibrand).
Can the NY Times please offer some responsible journalism about this important campaign?
What you’ve offered so far is biased (on Jan. 27, 2010) or inaccurate (April 2, 2010).
Wake Up! You must be able to do a better job of covering this race, the issues important to the people of New York, and the people’s candidate: Jonathan Tasini.
Honestly,
I would be interested in seeing some coverage about Jonathan Tasini, who is challenging Kirsten Gillibrand for the U.S. Senate seat from New York. Although I am from Dallas, TX, I follow a number of important races around the country. So far, I have seen very little written about Mr. Tasini. The voters of New York are looking to the Times to give them the information they need to make an informed choice.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Trudy Hess
Dallas, TX
Mr. Hoyt,
I think it would be worth your while to investigate the Times’ failure to cover the campaign of Jonathan Tasini for the NY U.S. Senate seat now held by Senator Gillibrand. He’s a declared candidate with a small war chest, running on a platform which is enlightened and not that far from he mainstream. It’s distressing that the Times has provided so much coverage on potential candidates who apparently have toyed with the idea of challenging the incumbent, while Mr. Tasini, who’s in the race (and often on his bicycle in an effort to reach NY voters) is given short shrift.
Please let me know if you’re willing to take on this investigation.
Ira Pearlstein
Brooklyn NY
I’m not a New Yorker, but if I were, I’d vote for Jonathan Tasini. FAIR tells me â┚¬“ and a lot of other folks â┚¬“ that the Times has only mentioned Mr. Tasini once as a candidate for U.S. Senator from New York since his announcement for the office in 2009. For a big international newspaper of the Times’ standing, that doesn’t seem fair. I have read at least one of his news releases in another New York newspaper, and can’t imagine the Times was left off his distribution list. The office he is seeking is important to all the people of New York; it’s only fair they should know of his candidacy and compare his views with those of his opponent. Please see that he is given fair coverage; at least publish his news releases.
Dear Clark Hoyt,
I am asking that you stop covering non-candidates for the New York Senate position and provide coverage to candidates actually running for the position. The coverage of candidates who are NOT running has far exceeded the coverage of a candidate actually running, Jonathan Tasini. Readers who were lucky enough to read the one article about him on 1/27/2010 got a view of him as an underdog challenging for the seat. Tasini’s campaign was launched in June 2009 and has only received one article. Meanwhile other “potential” candidates like Harold Ford, Mort Zuckerman, and Dan Senor received 6, 3, and 2 articles respectively who all decided not to run for the position. This along with the other 9 articles covering Democrats who decided not to run is ridiculous. If you are going to give this much coverage to non-candidates it would be wise to give that kind of coverage to Tasini. I seriously hope you are not denying him coverage because of his political views. Let the people of New York decide for themselves. Maybe if he decided not to run he would get more coverage.
Mr. Hoyt:
It is an outrage that the Times is giving virtually no space or attention to an actual candidate for the Senate, while bestowing large amounts of space & attention to people who are not even declared candidates!
Jonathan Tasini, who is a true grassroots candidate, instead of another megacorporation-purchased puppet, has been worse than ignored by the Times. In fact, the Times has actually stated that Gillibrand is unopposed in the Democratic Primary…. a flat out lie!
It is blatantly obvious that the Times is trying to sway the election in favor of the ultra-right, not by the acceptable traditional means (through editorial opinions), but instead, by simply refusing to report valid news! Because Tasini is a progressive (he stands for the average American instead of the super-wealthy) he is being denied any coverage.
New York voters deserve to make up their own minds… they have a right to unbiased reporting of all the news, & what the Times is doing sullies even the label of “newspaper”.
This is unconscionable, and warrants your immediate attention to correct it!
I do a lot of e-politics but rarely pass on my opinions to family and friends – they have their own e-messages to answer. BUT, I checked out Jon Tasini on Wikipedia and was quite impressed. I visited his site and then had to e-send my opinion to a few people. I hope fair-minded people override the lack of coverage of Jonathan Tasini.
Last night my husband and I went to see “The Most Dangerous Man in America.”
It was very heartening to remember the courage of the New York Times when it decided to print the information that Dan Ellsberg risked his freedom to bring to Americans.
It is very disheartening to see the New York Times become the mouthpiece for lies that led us into the war on Iraq and now to see you not giving fair coverage — or hardly any coverage at all — to a progressive candidate who is actually challenging the appointed junior Senator of your state.
It is beyond comprehension that a paper which prides itself on accuracy and completeness should ignore a progressive challenger who has filed his papers and is actually running.
Why are you acting as if Jonathan Tasini doesn’t exist that there is no challenge from within the Democratic party to Gillibrand?
What’s to Fear in a little completeness?
Don’t let your editorial policy, whatever it has become, seep into your news department.
For shame.
Carolyn Scarr
1340 Ada Street
Berkeley, CA 94702
I am concerned about the New York Times deciding who is a valid candidate and who isn’t. As a member of the Green Party, I see it all the time. A progressive candidate is running and gets no coverage. The New York Times has given more coverage to people who are not running than to some of the choices we have in the election.
I am writing to you to ask that you look into why non-candidates matter more to the Times than real candidates.
Thank you.
If you have any other questions, feel free to email me.
Matt Cleveland
http://www.newmenu.org
“The Election Is Just The First Course”
Mr. Hoyt,
I would like to know why the New York Times has failed to cover Jonathan Tasini’s campaign for Senate. Since Tasini’s campaign began in June 2009, the Times has only printed one article about him. At the same time, it has printed numerous articles about potential candidates who ended up not running at all, like Harold Ford. (Source: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.)
Can you explain this?
Thank you,
Daniel Cohen
To:
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
As FAIR has made clear, the NYT is both wrong and negligent in covering the campaign for Gillibrand’s Senate seat. Why the neglect of Jonathan Tasini’s candidacy? Perhaps because the NYT prints “All the news that fits our viewpoint”
Don Porter
dondporter@gmail.com
On Apr 9, 2010, louise wrote:
Dear Mr. Hoyt,
I am seriously dismayed by the irresponsibility of the New York Times. Why the Times is giving all but zero coverage to Jonathan Tasini, an actual candidate in this year’s Senate race, while giving unusually broad coverage to non-candidates?
This is my letter to the Times:
Over the course of the past year, the Times has provided ample coverage to a series of potential U.S. Senate candidates from New York, none of whom are actually running for office. Meanwhile, a candidate who is in fact challenging incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in the September 2010 primary has been almost erased from the picture.
That progressive activist Jonathan Tasini is running against Gillibrand, who was appointed to the seat in 2009, is known to Times readers who happened to catch a single story by N.R. Kleinfeld headlined “An Underdog Who Isn’t Daunted by a New Try for the Senate”, the only mention to date in the paper of record of Tasini’s candidacy, which was launched in June 2009.
Meanwhile, the Times has treated possible high-profile candidacies as if they were real news. Former Democratic Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee, for example, contemplated a run, which elicited substantial coverage before Ford decided against the idea. His formal decision to not run garnered him a news story and an op-ed piece on the same day with a piece the next day that re-capped the non-campaign. The Times has devoted at least nine articles to other Democrats who thought about but in the end decided not to run against Gillibrand.
On the Republican side, real estate investor and Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman was a possible challenger, resulting in a series of articles. Dan Senor, a military adviser to George W. Bush best known for conducting press relations during the early part of the Iraq War, also considered running, and was also treated seriously by the Times.
This pattern was taken to the absurd extreme with an April 3 piece headlined, “As Rivals Flee, Others Ask, What’s to Fear In Gillibrand?” The article claimed that while “her poll numbers are unimpressive,” Gillibrand “has only token Republican opposition” because no one is challenging her for the Democratic nomination:
Ms. Gillibrand has been under siege almost from the moment Gov. David A. Paterson appointed her to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in January 2009. Initially, she faced the possibility of challenges from members of her own party, including the Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer; Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island; and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney of Manhattan. They all opted out.
Given that Tasini is in fact running against Gillibrand, the Times is simply wrong. But why are you neglecting a candidate who garnered 17 percent of the primary vote in 2006 against Hillary Clinton, a much better known incumbent than Gillibrand?
The Times should get over its bias based on Tasini’s successful lawsuit against the Times and other publications as head of the National Writers Union to ensure that freelancers be paid for electronic rights to their work. That relationship ought to make the paper wary of appearing to hold a grudge. The Times should also give up its bias against Tasini’s political views. As the single Times article about him noted:
He is against the healthcare bill, and wants Medicare for all. He is against the dual wars. (”I will not vote for a single penny to continue either war.”) He wants to increase the minimum wage immediately to $10 an hour and see it quickly reach $15 to $20. He wants a stronger labor movement. (”People say you’re antibusiness. I’m pro-business because I want jobs. What I’m against is foolishness.”) He wants a tax on every transaction on Wall Street. He supports gay marriage and gun control.
It is irrelevant that the Times considers these positions to be outside the mainstream. It is up to the voters of New York state to make that decision. Given its coverage of the race so far, perhaps Tasini would get more ink from the Times if he decided not to run. Non-candidates are the only ones the paper is interested in covering.
I expect the Times to provide just as much coverage to Jonathan Tasini as it does to other candidates and much more than it gives to non-candidates.
Walter McClatchey
Alexandria, LA
Here is the letter I sent:
To Whom It May Concern,
What does Tasani have to do to get a mention in your paper?
Never mind. I can tell by reading any section of your paper. Either he has made you angry at some time in the past or holds views that run against your corporate viewpoint. Those are the ones you don’t seem to have any extra print space for.
Sincerely,
Donald Smith
Battle Ground, WA
And here is the canned response I received:
Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. An associate or I read every message. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally to every message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroom staffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages are treated with serious consideration.
Other Resources:
Subscription issues: 1-800-698-4637.
Technical problems with nytimes.com: help@nytimes.com.
Reprint rights to articles: rights@nytimes.com.
Reprint rights to pictures: photosales@nytimes.com.
Back copies: 800-543-5380.
Older newspaper archives: Historic Newspaper Archives, at 1-800-221-3221, or at histnews@historicnewspaper.com.
High quality custom reprints of Times articles in quantities of 500 or more: http://www.nytimes.com/timesagency.
Job opportunities at The Times: hrresume@nytimes.com.
Advertising questions: http://nytmarketing.com/mediakit/.
Easy to see where their priorities lie – (use of word intended)
Dear Clark Hoyt,
I read the New York Times every day and I’ve been wondering why dont I see anything about Jonathan Tasini vis-a-vis the New York Senate race? You print articles about people who are thinking about running, who decide against running, and about the candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, but why not Jonathan Tasini, who is a declared candidate and actually IS running against her? He is conspicuous by his absence. Could it be because he supports single payer health care? Single payer health care was also conspicuous in its absence all through the health care debate, can I say there was a black out against single payer in your paper? That’s not fair! How are people to make up their minds if all the information isnt out there in the media? The NYT isnt a right wing rag, so what’s up?
thanks
margaret copi
Oakland CA