NY-20: Major newspaper subsidizes Tedisco's second campaign

Tedisco's ability to get free media (0.00 / 0)

extends into the Internets, thanks to to the click-hungry Times Union.

---

by: devtob @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 04:10:54 AM UTC

Scott Murphy supporters can't take anything for granted - Tedisco (4.00 / 1)

has that 4000 vote advantage in Saratoga County over Murphy.  I think Murphy got some traction by voting against the health care reform bill because it would have taxed paper and medical device manufacturing industries.  There are medical device manufacturers in Saratoga county.

Also a plus if Tedisco runs again, the Murphy campaign can exploit the weaknesses Tedisco displayed in his last campaign.

HylasBrook

---

by: HylasBrook @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 15:24:58 PM UTC

NY-20 Major newspaper subsidizes Tedisco's second campaign (0.00 / 0)

By this logic the Albany TU is also subsidizing the campaigns of Comptroller Michael Conners, John Faso and Senator Roy McDonald. Each of them has a 'state/local' blog on city brights.  

---

by: FHayek @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 21:34:41 PM UTC

Indeed, the TU is not just helping Tedisco (0.00 / 0)

with a free blog where he gets to moderate the comments to his political advantage.

---

by: devtob @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 00:38:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is (0.00 / 0)

your point. What or who are you criticizing - Tedisco or the TU..? Unless the TU is blocking other officeholders/potential or current candidates from having their own blog, it's a straw man argument. Though not sure who/what you're arguing against.  

---

by: FHayek @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 at 01:57:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow!! I have the same problem with Tedisco! (4.00 / 1)

Devtob, I am running into the exact same problems with Tedisco, and it shocked me.

I told Tedisco I liked how he handled the license plate thing in a write up on his blog, because it was non-partisan.  He printed that and followed up and said the name calling should stop.

In the next 24 hours I heard Tedisco on tv calling the governor a liar, so I asked him about that under the same blog post.  He said the governor said ..... and that he calls it like he sees it.   I said he was not accurate about what the governor said, and calling people liars is name calling.  He did not print that.

I saved a pdf of my comment sitting there awaiting moderation, while other comments appeared after mine, and mine never appeared.  In a later blog post he made, I asked him why he seems to be censoring posts that don't violate any rules.  He did not print it -- and I saved it.

I asked the TU how to bring this issue to the news section, since I already knew the web section thinks this is okay.  The TU would not send it to news, saying the web section is part of news and sets policy.  Funny.

So, today I contacted the web section and the editor, and asked for it to be addressed.

I want to point out to you that Gerald Jennings, the mayor of Albany, did the exact same thing that Tedisco is doing.   Mike Conners, Alice Green and others seem to print everything, even edgy and provocative and stupid comments, which is the right way to go.

---

by: mtnclimber @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 12:31:28 PM UTC

Clearly, TU staff do not moderate comments (0.00 / 0)

under blogs they give out to politicians.

Some pols print every comment, Tedisco obviously does not.

Given how Tedisco is gaming their system, the TU should either moderate the pols' blogs, or not give blogs to pols who are running constant re-election/election campaigns.  

---

by: devtob @ Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:53:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Did you notice that the TU's "interactive audience manager" had time to post on a blog about bras, but can't figure out that (a) censorship by politicians is bad and (b) how to stop it?

(The bra thing is on Lydia Kulbida's blog.)

I asked the interactive audience manager for his supervisor's name and contact info.

---

by: mtnclimber @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 21:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the TU got back to me and asked (4.00 / 1)

what I want, saying it wasn't clear.

I asked them to pay more attention. I said to tell politician bloggers to post comments that do not violate TU rules -- or stop blogging.

And if that doesn't seem workable....

The TU should take over handling posting comments for politician bloggers who are running for election or have said publicly that they are considering it.

The way the TU set it up, politicians control that -- and no one knows it's being censored VERY differently.  What a nice gig for them!

---

by: mtnclimber @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 20:11:07 PM UTC

mtnclimber, are you (0.00 / 0)

opposed to politicians having blogs on the Times-Union, or are you objecting to some section of the TU's guidelines regarding blog moderation for non-TU employees?

You're suggesting the TU exercise discretion, but seem to disagree with how that discretion is being exercised.

Then you asked them to pay more attention...and then told them to adjust how they're already interacting with their bloggers...and if the blogger violates your particular view of discretion...the TU should take your advice and boot them off the site.

I'm guessing the TU hashed out all these issues before they decided to allow officeholders, candidates/potential candidates to blog.

Question: are you suggestintg the TU's appearance of impartiality might be suffering by such practices?

What would you think of the TU's impartiality if hypothetically, in their process of expanding, a U.S. Congressman bankrolled half the price of their expanded newsroom--would the TU's coverage of said politician be slightly sullied?

Because this reminds me of a similar story recently of a Congressman with access to the federal treasury securing a large grant for a community radio station in his congressional district. Congressman Scott Murphy obtained a $71,486 grant for the community radio station WGXC through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Checking their website, WGXC--like the bloggers on TU's "City Brights"--will be discussing "local" issues.

Given your concern for news organizations being too close and friendly with politicians...I'm curious to get your take on the objectivity and appearance of impartiality WGXC's coverage of Rep. Murphy will have in the wake of him bankrolling their organization?  

 

---

by: FHayek @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:03:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not talking about hypotheticals (4.00 / 1)

There's no need to talk about hypotheticals.

I documented that two of the politician bloggers at the TU censor comments that do not violate any rules of the TU.

Tedisco is the current politician who does this.  Gerald Jennings was the first politician I knew about who did this, but he does not blog there any more.

When asked by the TU what I want, I said to tell bloggers to follow TU rules re posting comments, and if that doesn't work, have the TU handle the comments section of politician bloggers who are running for office or talking about it.

A news story about what Tedisco is doing would be good too.

---

by: mtnclimber @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 11:36:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was attempting to (0.00 / 0)

demonstrate the inconsistency of this website criticizing the TU for allowing Tedisco to blog on their site, while albanyproject was silent when Murphy got $71,000 for a new radio station that will be responsible for reporting stories on the congressman objectively.

It really has little to do with the actions of the TU, Tedisco or Murphy, it has everything to do with AP's partisan double standard.

---

by: FHayek @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 22:36:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, you are wrong (0.00 / 0)

Scott Murphy did not get any money for WGXC. He merely announced our grant. WGXC did the work to get the grant. WGXC deserves the credit, as the grant was enormous and took lots of work to fill out. Scott Murphy merely announced the grant, as Congresspeople do to federal grants in their districts. Please do not repeat this falsehood any more. Thanks.

See www.wgxc.org

---

by: WGXC @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:22:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WGXC has not received one dime from Scott Murphy (0.00 / 0)

Scott Murphy merely announced our grant. He was not elected when we did all the work to get the grant. Some of the media in our area wrote about our grant, and made up their own facts, and said he got us the money. That was false. We said he "announced" the grant, which is true. The Commerce Dept. told him, and he told us, and we both told the media. But, Scott Murphy has not give WGXC a dime of his own money or any federal funds. Please stop repeating this inaccuracy. Thanks.

See www.wgxc.org

---

by: WGXC @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:20:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, Scott Murphy did not get any money for WGXC (0.00 / 0)

This is false. Murphy merely announced the grant, he had absolutely nothing to do with the grant. This is false.

See www.wgxc.org

---

by: WGXC @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 20:24:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Murphy should have his own blog on the TU website! (4.00 / 1)

His (Murphy's) failure to give tit for tat is his own fault, not Tedisco's. He should be blogging daily so that his constituents do not get the idea he is asleep at the wheel in DC.  Wake up Mr. Murphy!!  Duh....

---

by: hawkny @ Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 15:54:49 PM UTC