Why is the New York Times and other Major Newspapers Ignoring the Race in the 40th Assembly District?

The New York Times is a fraudulent newspaper. There; I said it. To me it’s true. The editors are a bunch of scam-artists. Year after year, they project that they are the most liberal of all newspapers in this country; but that’s a lie, and it’s time to expose their hypocrisy. Okay; so there goes my future gig at the Times: whoop-dee-damn-do. I hate hypocrisy. I really do.

Two years ago Assemblyman Clarence Norman (43rdAD) was facing reelection-while at the same time facing indictments in Brooklyn’s courts of about 80 counts-the New York Times sat on their hands. They refused to enthusiastically endorse his competent opponent-attorney Edward A. Roberts. They also took a pass on Roger Green’s race (57thAD)-when an aggressive early stand could have helped prevent that embarrassment. This year, Diane Gordon is in a similar situation, and again the Times refuses to endorse in that race (40th AD). Either of Ms. Gordon’s opponents (Kenneth Evans or Winchester Key) is preferable to her. PERIOD. Ms. Gordon is also being opposed for District Leader/Female (she holds two positions in this district), and even there she should be voted out.

Could the Times be practicing a not-too-subtle form of racism? I say: maybe. Let me tell you why. Look at the areas in this city that are predominantly black or Hispanic, and also where the representatives are hideously bad in every which way-including thieves and scoundrels; how does the Times deal with these districts come election time? They usually ignore them. When it comes to white areas where the representation is even sub-par (far more felonious), the Times would take a pro-active and aggressive approach to helping get those inept incumbents out. Why the disparity? Is it because the New York Post, the Daily News and Newsday, all sell better than the Times, in black and Hispanic areas of the city. Is it: you don’t purchase me, so therefore I will ignore your plight?

In all fairness to the Times, let me say that the other newspapers that I mentioned are almost as bad. I will give you the names of seven elected officials, and I want you to go and look at how the major newspapers responded to their districts at election time. The names are; Gloria Davis, Kevin Parker, Ada Smith, Clarence Norman, Roger Green, Diane Gordon and Angel Rodriguez. I am positing that if these were predominantly white districts that were being represented, that the newspapers would have been deeply involved at a higher level of profiling. The in-depth coverage of races and the hard-hitting endorsements against the incumbents or their replacements- cronies who are usually tainted- is usually missing in minority districts. Why is that?

Diane Gordon is caught on tapes involving her near-octogenarian mother in her dirt-this alone should disqualify her from office. She also attempted to involve Councilmember Charles Barron-even though he was ignorant of all her schemes- without any conscience or remorse. If the newspapers give Diane Gordon a pass and refuse to endorse any of her opponents, she could darn well be re-elected by many in the district who are unaware of her shenanigans. And believe me there are many. Barron is taking the cowardly way out by refusing to endorse any of her opponents-even though Evans aided in his initial election to office by being Barron’s petition-technician. But then who ever said that Charles Barron wasn’t blindly self-absorbed? Not I.

The newspapers need to take an aggressive approach to letting voters know of her actions and her upcoming trial; with all the potential ramifications of such. If they continue to ignore this race- aiding in Gordon’s re-election- then it will be like seeing the “Rodney King” tapes and recommending all those officers whipping Rodney’s ass, be cited with commendations. It will be shameful to say the least.

Well, there are 22 days to the primary; we shall surely see how the media handles the 40th AD in these coming days.

Stay tuned-in folks.