Dear Editors:

The constitution of this country reserves a special place for newspapers in this unfinished democracy: a special place which comes with specific responsibilities to the polity. Newspapers are expected to inform and edify the masses beyond the mundane day to day events of life in this city, state and nation. Its columnists, free-lance journalists and editorial boards are also expected to take positions on issues, in order to stimulate debate and discussion amongst elites, professionals and ordinary folks alike. Thus the roles and functions of any newspaper are quite important to the theory of democracy. And despite the fact that television, radio, the internet and other contemporary mediums within modern communications technology, have altogether surpassed newspapers as the main mode of information-gathering for most people, the responsibilities mandated by the constitution remain the same. 

With all this as a back drop, let me say that in my observations -after living in NYC for the past 37 years- the three top newspapers here (Times, News and Post) abdicate many of their responsibilities to the residents of this naked city. These failings are most pronounced at election time, and they aid in creating the obviously dysfunctional legislatures at both state and city levels.  

Whenever a story breaks about some elected official in trouble, the three newspapers indulge in sensationalism beyond necessity. They then (usually) pontificate about the need to clean up Albany or City Hall, and write scathing editorials condemning said politician: calling for his or her head. Then the story dies on the vine, hardly ever to be revisited again, unless there is a trial or some requisite follow-up: too difficult to ignore or discard. 

The problem herein relates to those insurgents who emerge to challenge said tainted elected(s); the newspapers hardly ever follow-up or publicize the campaign of said challengers. The question becomes: why? Case in point is the challenge of businessman-educator Wellington Sharpe to Senator Kevin Parker, in Brooklyn’s 21st senatorial district (East Flatbush, Midwood, Borough Park, etc.), and the almost non-existent coverage of this race in the top three city newspapers. 

During his eight years in office, whenever Senator Kevin Parker did something reprehensible (and he has done many such things), the three top newspapers would jump all over his actions like white on steamed rice. They often listed his many recalcitrant actions: he assaulted a traffic agent; he assaulted a New York Post reporter (word is that he fractured the reporter’s finger) -and after being indicted by a grand jury the case is still pending; he assaulted a female staffer -allegedly pushing her down some stairs- and it is said that this isn’t his first or last altercation with a staffer; he has had many a tiff with police officers and traffic-enforcement personnel; he threatened to fight a female fellow member of the senate (Sen. Diane Savino) in the senate chambers; he cussed-out at least one fellow democrat on the senate floor (Sen. Ruben Diaz); he has berated and disrespected many a committee chairperson; he suggested that all the white republicans elected from upstate districts were racists and  KKK members; he denigrated the governor (Paterson) by calling him a drug-using, staff-banging, womanizing adulterer; and he generally behaves like some neighborhood thug.

After all the Parker-headlines, you will expect that the three top newspapers in this city would see it as their responsibility to cover any challenge to such a bellicose senator. After all, this isn’t the type of role model we would want for our impressionable school kids: given that all three newspapers often distribute free copies to various city schools. And further, since many prominent residents of this city have requested Parker’s resignation from the senate -primarily after the Hiram Monseratte imbroglio. You would think that any challenger to Parker will be guaranteed some ink from the press corps; especially when some folks are wondering why -after all these years- Parker has never even faced disciplinary hearings in the senate.

But alas, coverage of the challenge from Wellington Sharpe has been tepid at best. It is as if Parker is being given a free ride by the top three newspapers -even after he attacked one of their own: who was working on a story involving Parker’s mortgage failings and potential home foreclosures.

What has been disappointing about the lack of coverage in this race is the fact that all three of these newspapers -at some point or the other in time- either called for Parker’s resignation or expulsion from the senate; and if not that, for the voters of the 21st district, to vote him out of office.

There are two weeks left until primary day (9-14-2010). There is still time for the top three newspapers to do some in-depth coverage of this race. Sharpe is a long-time political activist, with solid community-involvement credentials. He is a member of Community Board 17, and the president of his block association. He also holds membership in many civic organizations, including the Caribbean-American Chamber of Commerce. As a successful businessman, he is focused on job-creation as a governmental responsibility. In the past he has often criticized Parker’s lack of maturity, senatorial temperament and personal decorum. He needs more news coverage to help bring further attention to his challenge. It is expected that very few voters will turn out for this primary given the economy and general apathy out there. His one hope is that media entities would come in to stimulate interest in the contest.

Sharpe has also been disappointed that organizations which laud non-violence and civic responsibility, haven’t stepped in to condemn Parker’s consistent, persistent and insistent bad behavior. To him it is a question of setting higher behavioral standards for our political leaders. To him, one leads by example. So again, the question becomes: what example is being set by the top three newspapers in this city, if they refuse to cover pivotal political races during election time? What is being implied by all this: that it is all right for an elected official to break the law, behave badly, treat people like crap, and at the same time be re-elected over and again? 

It is time for the editors of the top three city newspapers, to re-think what has been (ostensibly) their hands-off stance on this upcoming race. It’s their constitutional dictate. It’s their civic duty. Further avoidance will be quite irresponsible. It is time to step up coverage of this race, and of some others taking place next month all over this city. 

Respectfully submitted; 
Rock Hermon Hackshaw.