CITY Newspaper has endorsed my opponent in a piece that strongly suggests the outcome was predetermined. It’s regrettable that CITY has not done a single story objectively covering this race. Instead, readers will only see an endorsement article. The article quotes an ardent supporter of Harry Bronson. No one supporting me was quoted, though the publisher did contact me last week to buy ad space.
I’m disappointed CITY was so dismissive of my 17-year professional record and impact on the community. Unfortunately, that’s an attitude I’ve encountered before; it’s a misconception that broadcast journalists are shallow and attention-seeking.
I understand that building constructive relationships is critical for legislative work. I just believe more of those relationships need to be with constituents than they have been during my opponent’s tenure. Outside of affluent enclaves in Southeast Rochester, a majority of constituents are not familiar with Bronson and repeatedly tell me he has not been responsive to their needs.
CITY goes to great lengths to make Bronson’s “behind the scenes” work look exemplary, though there’s not much of a record to support these claims. Calling yourself a great worker behind the scenes is a terrific way to inoculate yourself against accountability to the public. Behind the scenes work is only part of his job. He’s not doing the work when it comes to staying in touch with constituents and making sure their concerns are heard before crucial votes. Bronson is now raising concerns about START-UP New York, which is a failed economic development program. I’m among those who raised concerns when it was first proposed.
CITY never mentioned Bronson’s vote to tie teacher evaluations to tests. Yes, it was part of the budget. However, he hasn’t sponsored bills to roll back harmful education policies. He’s been completely silent about concerns over high-stakes testing.
CITY also dismissed serious questions about Bronson’s use of taxpayer-funded mail and his travel expenses. CITY never asked him why he supports a pay raise for lawmakers. Bronson is deeply-entrenched in Albany’s broken system and wants us to believe this system works for us.
Leadership is important. Transparency is important. Engagement is important. I will work hard to represent everyone in this district.
Mary Anna Towler’s response: We’re happy to let Barnhart make the case for her election, and we welcome other responses related to that race. However, Barnhart’s reference to “the publisher” calling to discuss advertising – as though it were related to our endorsement – deserves comment.
This company has two co-publishers: my husband Bill and myself. Bill’s responsibilities are in sales and marketing; mine are in editorial. Both of us, as publishers, manage the top operations and direction of the company.
For all of CITY’S 45 years, we have adhered rigorously to journalistic ethics. Our staff adheres to those ethics equally rigorously. CITY is not Bill and me; it is 19 staffmembers; numerous freelance writers and photographers; distribution folks, and a board of directors that provides business counsel. To suggest that our political endorsements are linked to advertising purchases is to attack the integrity not only of my husband and myself but also the integrity of all of these dedicated, talented CITY people.
We have never based editorial coverage on advertising. Our editorial staff bases its endorsements and other editorial decisions on research, experience, knowledge of the community, and extensive, lively discussions. I am proud of the knowledge, perception, and humility that they bring to that important responsibility and deeply regret Barnhart’s suggestion that they have acted unethically.
The members of our sales staff have reached out to political candidates every year of our publishing history, as they do to people, businesses, and organizations throughout the year. Like many media salespeople, ours sometimes lose important sales because of editorial coverage a client perceives as unfavorable or politically objectionable. The loss affects these salespeople financially, and they take those losses with professionalism and grace, for which we are grateful.
Our responsibility is to our readers and the general public. Our ethical standards are our most valuable attributes. An attack on our editorial, advertising, and management decisions is perfectly acceptable. An unfounded attack on the ethics of the superb people who produce CITY is not.
This article appears in Aug 31 – Sep 6, 2016.
I haven’t decided who I’ll vote for.
I wouldn’t know Harry Bronson if he passed me on the street. That’s sad. But I do understand that much of running a government is grunt work, not show time. I’d prefer someone a bit more approachable, definitely.
Rachel Barnhart is energetic and easily recognizable. She makes good use of social media, with her blog full of selfies and stories of her dog. But as a newsperson, she has been all about storming into situations, with a “look at me, I’m challenging an important person” attitude, not always knowing or understanding nuance. She attacked Lovely Warren in ways she would never have gone after previous mayors, like Duffy and Richards. Running a government requires someone who can challenge the status quo, surely, but it also requires a lot of time sitting behind a desk doing boring work that no one can see.
So, as I said, I don’t know who I’ll vote for.
Oy. I’m reading this in open-mouthed astonishment at the defensive barrage from City, unleashed against the non-endorsed candidate’s rebuttal. A rebuttal which certainly does pointedly express some frustration with the general lack of detailed coverage of this key primary, and several key things about the incumbent’s record that were not even glossed over, but went entirely unmentioned. Yet despite that, NOWHERE in the rebuttal do I see the challenger actually accuse City of any ethical lapse.
No, what I see is a sentence addressing that one of the incumbent’s supporters was quoted in the endorsement, but not one of the challenger’s supporters was quoted, or apparently even contacted. That’s an entirely reasonable thing to point out. But the challenger goes further, attempting to make the point — and this is how I read it — that if City has the time to call about an ad, it should have time to call to get a balancing quote from one of the challenger’s supporters. That makes sense to me, especially as I recognize the name of the quoted pro-incumbent supporter as someone who has attacked the challenger on social media in a way that calls her clear-headedness into question, to say nothing of her impartiality.
What I don’t see here is a sentence or even sentence fragment in the rebuttal calling City’s ethics into question. But what I do see is a FOUR PARAGRAPH LONG blast-back from City against an allegation that was never made. Perhaps that defensive offense resulted from City anticipating responses to its endorsement that would point out exactly what the rebuttal rightly pointed out. And so perhaps City was on a hair-trigger, ready to fire back with the full broadside salvo that we see here. Except that the salvo — like a B movie about an accidental nuclear war — was triggered by a false bogey. The challenger, in her rebuttal, simply did not, demonstrably, impugn the ethics of City or its fine employees (many of whom I know personally, and whose body of work and dedication I admire).
Perhaps City was goaded into this over-the-top response by the simple question raised this morning on social media by 1370 Connection host Evan Dawson, about whether City’s solicitation of an ad from a candidate — or any media outlet’s solicitation of ads from candidates during an election cycle — compromises or colors their endorsements? Either in actuality or in perception? He went further to suggest that perhaps media outlets should curtail ad solicitation of candidates during endorsement season. Having written for alt-weeklies and online publications myself, I can see right away why that wouldn’t be practical, but they were reasonable questions and suggestions. That kind of thinking out loud is what social media is for. But again, in asking those questions, Dawson didn’t lodge any actual ethical charge against City.
Bottom line: there is simply no actual justification for City to assume a posture of high dudgeon over this. Methinks City doth protest way, way, too much here.
This is all a way-too-long way of saying, “hey, no harm, no foul here.” And this would be a good place to end this comment, except for the need to point out that there has been some actual harm done here: to the challenger. Four paragraphs of blasting the challenger over a phantom allegation say, “Bad challenger! Bad, bad challenger!” In my opinion, that really merits a dialing back. Perhaps this piece should be reposted with those four paragraphs removed, or reworked to way tone them down. Or perhaps an apology to the challenger. Or even reaching out to confirm whether there ever was, indeed, an intention to question City’s journalistic ethics. I understand that the rebuttal and City’s response won’t appear in print until next week, so that gives plenty of time to clear this up and bind up the wounds.
We all know politics ain’t beanbag. Tensions rise and tempers are short during campaign season. Everyone is sick of the TV ads, the polling, the robocalls, the knocks on the door. Everyone is sleep deprived and from time to time folks lose their cool or type something that gets misconstrued. That goes with the territory.
But let’s all stick to substance, and not add any extra silly to Silly Season.
She’d never go after Duffy? Well, I found this…
http://therochesterian.com/2013/09/18/what…
As for attention seeking, running a campaign is very difficult. In a competitive race, you *must* respond to things even if it seems they’re ridiculous.
As for nuance, look at the Republicans who support her on social media. I’ve *never* seen any candidate who was able to convince people from both sides to her point as well as she has. At times, it can be maddening. But that’s partially what’s led to her strong following.
Peter Mauer–this piece on Duffy is no where near as caustic as she was with Mayor Warren.
I am so sick of listening to Rachel playing the victim card. She’s constantly claiming to be biased against with no proof other than her own personal anecdotes that are laughable. She gets infuriated and vengeful when she feels people imply she is “unethical”. You don’t have to actually state anything explicitly.
She’ll read through your words and pull meaning out of them on her own. Yet she does her own implying in her response that City Newspaper is being unethical because she was approached about advertising. If she can accuse others of being unethical, than she should accept that some may see her in the same light.
Kathryn,
I commend you for your opinion, but it seems like maybe you glossed over many of the details about Rachel Barnhart and who she has tackled in politics. Peter was quick to point out how Rachel has taken local leaders to task. The one thing you have to understand about the Duffy versus Warren news articles is about their character. Duffy held himself in a appropriate manner. He was dignified and sometimes worked on Sundays to help out citizens of Rochester. Warren was a longtime political insider with 8 years in the City Council. When she came to office, she was trying to hire family members and she was beat up over her economic policies. Warren got dragged through the media mud because she should have known better.
Rachel doesn’t have just a blog and a Twitter account, she has a Facebook account as well. There she talked about stories she reported on. Many of them were about government waste and accountability. She is one of a few local journalists who ask the tough questions. I respect that immensely because I think our local media is too comfortable with them. Our newspapers protect them. Why does it take 20 years to find out through “investigative journalism” of some news station, that Joe Morelle drives a car paid for by taxpayers? Rachel is the real deal. She shined a light on the spat between local business leaders surrounding where the HQ of the photonic labs was going to be located. She broke down, in every article, what you need to know. Nobody does that in Rochester.
Did you even k ow that Rachel was shut down by Warren for asking the tough questions during her pressers? Is it a coincidence that Lovely Warren immediately endorsed Rachel’s opponent, even before Rachel officially announced her campaign? That’s dedication to the people or Rochester! She is the first person who risked her job to take on the cabal that is Albany and start making local leaders accountable. I mean, who knows if no one took Mayor Warren to task, we might have a water park behind Strong Museum run by Warren’s family.
I want you to do what I do every year during the election cycle. You go to your official’s website or for state officials, their .gov profile. Take a look at their bill history. Does it seem biased? Are they sponsors or co-sponsors of bills they passed?
Is that something you also believe in? Do you think they are working hard for you? Elected officials in Albany also sit on committees. Do you think they are representing Rochester with their bills they write? That’s how you measure an elected official’s efforts to work for you. Don’t fall for the “I helped with this bill” on a piece of monumental legislation that is usually written by either the Goverbor’s office or the Speaker’s office (Maybe the Senate Majority leader) because this state’s government is run by three people in a room. All the big legislation is not written by some Podunk legislator in Northern NY. For instance, when the Empire Zone legislation was introduced for Upstate NY, all of the upstate legislators are cosponsors, so that it looks representative of the area it affects. Did they help write it? No. It was written by the Speaker’s people and the Upstate legislation just sign it. This is how Bronson is able to say “I did this for you.” Completely untrue. He’s not even on the committee!
NY is one of the most secretive govts in the Union. There is no transparency. Bronson is not a fighter of making sure you know what you are supposed to know. Heck, he’s not even visiting his constituents. I don’t know much about his character. I don’t k ow what he stands for. Just like his political life, his personal is even more secret. Is he a pet owner? Does he like dogs or cats? There are simple ways people identify with their elected officials. What you have to decide is whether Harry Bronson’s efforts these last 6 years are worth sending him back for another two year term. At least with Rachel Barnhart, you know what you are getting. With Harry, it’s just a big question mark.
Rachel, you have nothing to worry about.
When most people go to vote, they’ll say “Harry who?”
You, on the other hand, will stand out, because your work as a reporter/news person has covered a number of community issues that have been aired.
Informed, educated people can make the connection, that when you delve into issues and ask questions, as you have done, you can’t help but be knowledgeable, yet you have the ability to communicate what you’ve learned to the public .
People will recognize your name and pretty face from the mainstream media; so don’t be so hard on City for trying to throw Harry a bone.
I believe in term limits. Bronson has been in office long enough. Barnhart is an even better successor.
I would like to thank those that have supported my daughter’s candidacy on this comment section. I am sure that Mr. Bronson is a decent and hard working man. But the fact is that Rachel has shown an ability to engage the community in ways unsurpassed in local social media. I truly believe her ability to expose constituent perspectives will help the voices of Upstate New York be heard.
Ya know how those murder shows talk about signs of a “crime of passion” where the killing isn’t random, but a personal, rage-fueled assault on the victim? The Bronson endorsement article isn’t a single gunshot wound to Barnhart’s head — it’s 136 stab wounds all over the face and body, with the blows continuing long after Barhart is dead. This “endorsement” was personal. It levels ongoing character assaults rather than an objective dissection of the candidates’ qualifications. By her own admission, publisher Mary Anna Towler was rude and dismissive to Barhart volunteers who came to her door. And then when Barnhart sent a response to City Newspaper’s Bronson endorsement, Towler used it as another opportunity to blast Barnhart using all sorts of inflammatory language, suggesting Barnhart attacked the integrity of her staff, and denouncing the alleged integrity attacks (which, of course, don’t exist). It is ironic Towler is so defensive over a perceived integrity attack… following her own newspaper’s unprecedented personal attack on an Assembly candidate.
City can endorse who they want. It’s just shameful they resorted to character assaults and personal motives to do it.
Jeremy is entitled to his opinion. City is entitled to its institutional voice. But it a violation of any concept of ethical journalism to write this kind of article and not include opinions from both sides. Everyone has a right to be heard. Not everybody has earned the right to be taken seriously. The publisher assures us that editorial policy has nothing to do with ad sales. I accept that. Barnhart did not assert that it did. But there are many departures from fair play and good judgment, reflected in this newspaper’s coverage of local politics, particularly local Democratic politics. I address a few of these matters in a comment about the main story. It has been a sad thing for many of us to witness. The publisher assures us that integrity is a valued asset of theirs. But if candidates, activists, and community leaders experience time and again that they have not been treated fairly, that will undermine the influence of a newspaper. I think this is an occasion for introspection on the part of Ms. Towler, which we are not seeing here.
I do not live in Rachel’s district. Mr. Bronson has had his chance. After 6 years of saying yes to Mr. Morelle he has been a good altar boy. We do not need altar boys, we need and intelligent, fiery and knowledgeable candidate, and Rachel Barnhart is this person. She does not have the money to call her constituents with asinine polls. Polls being paid with taxpayers money. Shame on City for asking the Barnhart campaign for ad money. Vote for Rachel on September 13. Lets bring change to Albany
To Tom
All media has a bias so to act as though City has violated some notion of journalistic integrity that is non existent in modern media is not pursuasive to me. I’m sure when you watch the evening news at night you are not upset at the vehement anti Republican bias. I suspect that you don’t even notice it.
Other media like Breitbart and the Murdoch media Fox,WSJ, NY Post, are biased Republican. I do wish journalists made the effort to be objective and fair but that is long gone.
I read Rachel’s response to the endorsement. She did mention that City had called her about advertising. Why was this mentioned? The only reason would be to suggest a quid pro quo existed between purchasing advertising and getting endorsements without directly stating so.
Regarding Warren and other local democrats endorsing Bronson, well duh! He’s an incumbent democrat who has the backing of the local party. Endorsements are about politics and say almost nothing about the actual feelings of the endorser.
To Mary Ann Towler’s response – your defensiveness is unfounded. Rachel’s point was not to question the ethics of you and your husband and the choice to endorse Harry. It was to make clear that you haven’t reached out to her to cover the primary, but you have reached out for ad space. To put it another way – you clearly know a race is being run, but haven’t bothered to cover it until this endorsement.
And while your defensiveness is unfounded, it is quite telling. I’d love to see your defense of endorsing Bronson when he represents the very problems with state government that you address in your paper every single week. Every week your paper discusses what is broken in Albany, and then when it comes time to endorse a state politician, you effectively say, “Let’s not fix what isn’t broken.” Well is it broken or not?
I’ll point it out again – how you endorsed Zephyr Teachout for Governor, but not Rachel Barnhart for State Assembly, is really puzzling. Like Barnhart, Teachout had no government experience, but did have leadership experience – Zephyr with Occupy Wall Street. Like Barnhart, Teachout represented clear change for an obviously broken system. And with both of them, the public was excited and energized for someone who wasn’t part of the old guard. Bronson, on the other hand, is the very definition of the old guard – Susan John’s Chief of Staff, Morelle’s stooge, Cuomo’s party line vote, etc. The only difference is that everyone has heard of John, Morelle and Cuomo but very few seem to know who Bronson is.
One does wonder exactly what the standards are over at CITY paper. I don’t think it has anything to do with ad space, but I’m not really sure what they are, or even where to begin figuring it out, either.
Sorry to impose on CITY’s hospitality again. Will be brief, in reply to comments by kgib and fgf (if those are their real names) — both of which took issue with what I wrote.
The first made the dubious assertion that Mayor Warren’s endorsement of Bronson was something CITY readers would not find curious — because incumbents always endorse incumbents. This is not accurate. You would have to be living under a rock to be unaware of divisions in the Democratic party in connection with this Mayor. While prefaced with a derisive “duh,” kgib displays a pretty shocking ignorance of the most fundamental realities of Roc Dem politics today. I’m content to let CITY readers make their own judgment as to the meaning of Warren’s support of Bronson. Some will approve this, some won’t, but few are likely to think it is unimportant.
fgf asserted that there was no other reason for Ms. Barnhart to mention being contacted to buy ads, other than to assert a quid pro quo. While Ms. Towler seemed defensive about the topic, the point could simply have been that CITY places greater urgency on selling ads than doing competent and fair journalism.
This does not make CITY exceptional. Many so called alternative newspapers have gone down this road.
As to the assertion that declining standards of balance and fair play in other media outlets somehows excuses it here, I think most readers will find that a weak argument.
Tom I was not giving City a pass for not providing a balanced report with reference to the Assembly race, if that is what they have done.
The point was that people are selective with their outrage and only complain when it goes against their candidate.
Good point. We do tend to be more indignant when our own side is slighted.