| Ever since Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she has faced a certain level of negative (or critical) coverage by New York City-based publications. When it became clear that Gillibrand was being appointed to fill the spot, the New York Times described her as "controversial among some of the party's more liberal leaders downstate" because of her alleged stances on certain hot-button issues. She was labeled as "inexperienced" by the New York Post, who said she big goals, but little experience.
In the six-plus months since her appointment, very little has changed from that aspect. In recent days, Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer has authored two columns (here and here) that paint Gillibrand as a political opportunist and as a puppet for the all-powerful Sen. Chuck Schumer. Liz Benjamin also played along today, using a post about Rep. Jerrold Nadler's endorsement of Manhattan DA candidate Richard Aborn to point out that Nadler has yet to endorse Gillibrand. Of course, he hasn't endorsed Rep. Carolyn Maloney either, but that's not how the point was framed.
This approach by members of the New York City media is becoming so blatant that it is really hard to take them serious, especially if this ends up being a legitimate primary with no possible candidates but an actual candidate in Rep. Maloney running against Sen. Gillibrand. They have treated Gillibrand as an outsider and even though we are all New Yorkers (as in the state), Gillibrand is not a "New Yorker" (as in the city).
I am a supporter of Gillibrand's. That I will disclose. Those who write for some of the above publications have read here in the past and will continue to read in the future. My message to them isn't that they kiss Gillibrand's feet and paint some fake picture of her. All I am asking for is balance. There needs to be a level of equality in their reporting. The continued "criticize Gillibrand" approach is getting tired. It is one thing to criticize an elected official where criticism is necessary. But it's another to pile on just because you don't know too much about them other than they aren't from your city.
Again, I'm not looking for special treatment. All I am looking for is a level of fairness and balance. There have been certain opinions of Gillibrand that aren't necessarily written, but are shown in the writing approach of these reporters. Sen. Schumer has been the beneficiary of plenty of positive media coverage from New York City publications in the past, but they have also critiqued him just the same. That same principle can be applied to Gillibrand, but we have yet to reach that point.
Is it the New York City media being disappointed that it was Gillibrand and not media darling Caroline Kennedy that was appointed to the seat? Possibly. And since Kennedy received just as much (if not more) media coverage than Gillibrand when Gillibrand's appointment was announced, it's hard to debate that point.
But that was a long time ago, at least in political terms. Caroline Kennedy is an afterthought at this point. We have a possible U.S. Senate primary and we have a senator that New Yorkers are trying to get to know. It is the media's responsibility to fairly distribute the news to show New Yorkers (whether in upstate or downstate) what their senator is doing or isn't doing. So far, that isn't being done.
We deserve better from our journalists. It's time we got the full story instead of the story they want to tell us about Sen. Gillibrand. |
