FAIR has a new action alert out about the New York Times' snubbing the U.S. Senate candidate Jonathan Tasini. While the paper has given intensive coverage to numerous New Yorkers who thought about challenging appointed incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand--but in the end decided not to run--the Times has ignored Gillibrand's most prominent actual rival in the Democratic primary, aside from one rather snarky profile that appeared in January. Click here to send a message to the Times--which you can post a copy of in the comments thread below.

The New York Times, which we had criticized (FAIR Blog, 1/12/10, 1/13/10) for ignoring insurgent candidate Jonathan Tasini in its coverage of the New York Senate race, ran a substantial piece about his candidacy today (1/27/10). While the piece, by N.R. Kleinfield, had a somewhat wry tone as it stressed the "long shot" nature of Tasini's bid, it also gave him space to outline his progressive policy positions and how they differ from those of incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

One of the frustrating things about corporate media coverage is that it's so focused on horserace coverage--who's likely to win or lose in voting that might be months or years away--and yet they're so bad at it.

Take the matter of Jonathan Tasini, running in the Democratic senatorial primary in New York against incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand--and an apparent nonperson to the state's most powerful newspaper, the New York Times.

The Times has lately run two extensive stories (1/11/11, 1/13/10) on whether Harold Ford, a former representative from Tennessee, would also run against Gillibrand--both of which ignored the fact that it was already a two-person race. Tasini, a writer and labor organizer, ran once before for the same seat, and got 17 percent of the vote against Hillary Clinton--a politician with greater name recognition than either Gillibrand or Ford.

You don't have to be Nate Silver to realize that a candidate who has the possibility to get 17 percent of the vote could have a major impact in a three-person race; even if you have a crystal ball that tells you that Tasini won't get more than that this time,  it's impossible to handicap the primary without having some sense of who those voters are and what they are likely to do faced with three choices.

But the Times, playing the traditional role of gatekeeper that powerful media outlets assign themselves in covering elections, evidently views Tasini as a gatecrasher and seems determined to ignore him--even if it means giving readers an incomplete and misleading view of the electoral landscape.

(I should note that I know Tasini, who wrote a report on media coverage of labor for Extra! back in 1990.)

The New York Times ran a front-page story (1/11/10) on the race for the Senate seat held by New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand  that omits mention of the sole Democratic candidate running a serious campaign against her. Jonathan Tasini (who garnered 125,000 votes in a bid for the seat against Hillary Clinton in 2006) declared in June of last year.

But while the paper of record has logged numerous stories on the race--including several, like today’s, focusing on people who are "thinking about" challenging Gillibrand (e.g., "Thompson Won't Rule Out Pursuing U.S. Senate Seat," 12/19/09)--they have so far completely ignored someone who’s actually doing so. Yesterday's piece, on the possible candidacy of former Tennessee congressmember Harold Ford, begins by stating that Gillibrand's "allies have elbowed out her would-be Democratic challengers one by one."

In contrast, Long Island's Newsday (1/11/10) deems Tasini newsworthy; the paper’s Dan Janison notes: "Quite a list of supposed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand 'rivals' in both parties soaked up attention only to punt: Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, Peter King, Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney; Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper; Rudy Giuliani; and Caroline Kennedy. So far, only Manhattan labor activist Jonathan Tasini, who declared last June, bothers to run."

Tasini was lead plaintiff against the New York Times in a lawsuit over writers' electronic rights that went to the Supreme Court in 2001. But Tasini doesn't think that’s the behind the paper's avoidance. He even said as much in a letter to Times columnist Clyde Haberman:

We have received scores of complaints  from our supporters who are angry about the Times' refusal to write about our  campaign. A number of them believe that refusal is precisely because I was the lead plaintiff against the New York Times in the landmark electronic rights lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court in 2001 in our favor. Frankly, I doubt that the lawsuit has much to do with the blackout.

Sadly, it has more to do with a narrow view of what should be used as a measuring stick by journalists to bestow on a candidate the blessing of coverage. And, so, while  you should be applauded for taking on the Democratic Party’s power brokers, I  think it is simply a truth that, while complaining about elites and the lack  of democracy, the Times is itself closing down the democratic debate.

Haberman's response was defensive and off-point:

Suggestions from within your political camp that I am affected by your having been the lead plaintiff in that suit against the Times couldn't be wider of the mark. Until you just mentioned it, I had completely forgotten about that lawsuit. You might want to work harder to hold the conspiracy theorists at bay, at least in regard to me.

But he never addressed Tasini's actual point: that by deciding to exclude candidates from coverage, the Times is forcing an undemocratic "winnowing" of the field before voters have an opportunity to inform themselves. Such gatekeeping runs counter to the goal of journalism to inform and encourage debate, and is surely part of the reason for the ever-increasing public cynicism about the electoral process.