Within the past forty minutes or so ago, a news report aired on WAMC radio in regards to a slam piece article written about Albany in the New York Times. If you came here this afternoon, you likely heard a brief comment from me regarding a controversial article.
At issue is a piece that does Albany more harm than good by kicking us when we’re down in regards to crime and other metrics.
The article conveniently forgets to mention that crime rates are actually going down in our city. The article also focused on the negative things that the city is going through at the hands of our current and incompetent leadership and ignored the positive things. But then again, this is the NYT, so should we be surprised?
The article discusses a potential $400 million investment in Albany by the state. Of course such assistance would go a long way in our city, but the article definitely did us more harm than good by making us look bad when in reality we’re making things better.
For me, at least for today, it’s not about pushing my agenda. It’s about responding to a damaging article, and it seems that all of us candidates, those who responded anyway, are pretty much on the same page.
What cannot be denied is this: the article was slanted, biased and rude. So much for balanced journalism!
WAMC did quick sound bites from he candidates for mayor, including myself. Well, I shouldn’t say all candidates. The reporter did reach out to all of us, but two candidates did not respond. Why would you not respond to something that’s of vital importance to the city? Make it make sense!
“Candidate Michael Crook says while the ‘Times’ story made some valid points, he claims the article was far from even-handed.
‘The paper made a problem much worse than it is,”‘ Crook said. ‘The financial damage that the article can cause is palpable. I don’t think they realized the kind of damages they did to us, and it’s basically scare tactics that seem to make things worse than they already are.'”
There wasn’t much time to go into detail there, but since I can take as much space as I wish here, I will do so.
When I mentioned the “financial damage that the article can cause is palpable,” I meant it.
Suppose a tourist thinking about coming to Albany to see all that we have to offer read that. Is that tourist really going to feel safe coming here, given that article which is published without comment from city leadership?
Are they going to be interested in seeing the positive things that the NYT article conveniently left out?
Sadly, the answer, I think, is “no.” There go the tourist dollars, because most readers are going to take that awful article at face value.
What other damages were done to us? That article could have scared off potential new residents and even new businesses. There goes the revenue that comes with that.
Lost tax revenue.
Lost customers for our many businesses.
Lost benefits of bringing in news businesses.
I stand by what I said: the potential, or almost certain, losses are indeed palpable. All it took was one article from a newspaper that has a megaphone whose batteries should have died years ago.
Yes, the article made some damning points, and a few of those points are, sadly, valid. Those points are valid due in large part to our current leadership.
This is an election year, so this is a perfect time to choose leadership that wants to change Albany in a positive way.
As I said before, I think all of the candidates for mayor share a united vision: a better Albany. That is, of course, except for the two candidates who seem to be intent on dodging the media. We don’t know their take on this situation because they’re ducking all media outlets. Are they even serious about running?
But I digress.
The question is this: whose leadership will make the best changes? Of course, I think that candidate is me, but this isn’t about that. Not for the purposes of this article anyway.
I think that all of us want the same thing. We all want to change Albany in a positive way. That will take a lot of work, and we can’t let one awful article deter us, no matter who moves his or her stuff onto the mayor’s desk.
The good thing is this: it looks as if we all agree that that article (we don’t know about the Cowardly Two). Though accurate on a very few points, that article could have painted us in a far better and a much more fair light.
I don’t know, maybe the newspaper’s purpose was to do us harm. That article almost certainly scared people away and for no good reason.
Yes, Albany has a crime problem. What city Albany’s size doesn’t? Oh, but the article doesn’t want you to know that.
They caught us with our pants down because, yes, we have had a violent couple of days recently, but the way I read it, at least one of those incidents was targeted, meaning that it could have happened anywhere.
I said that, “I don’t think [the newspaper] realizes” the harm that’s been done. There’s no way to know, of course, but if the article scared away even one tourist, even one potential resident or even one potential business, then we just suffered a major blow, and all at the hands of a slimeball reporter and a once mighty but now declining newspaper.
I’m disappointed in the newspaper for publishing it, but we cannot let it define us. Yes, there are a lot, and I mean a lot of things wrong with this city.
Those things need to be fixed, but will not be fixed until the current leadership is phased out at all levels.
And I mean leadership at all levels, at the top and trickling down to the police department and even further down.
Things need to change and names on doors need to change as well. Only then will we make things truly better in our city.
Come January 1st, a new person will walk into the mayor’s office. Who will that be? We don’t know, but that person better be ready to prove that article wrong and lead Albany away from the harm that’s been done by outgoing Mayor Sheehan and her cronies. And there are many of them. It’s because of them, I believe, that this article was written in the first place.
Now, all my fellow candidates are absolutely my competition, and I am not in the business of praising said competition, but, except for the Cowardly Two, I think we know that we each want what’s best for Albany.
We have our own plans, of course, but so far, the race seems to be filled with people who want to do the right thing.
This article very briefly unites us in one aspect: there’s a lot of work to do. And I think I speak for all of us when I say that the time will come that the article will be proven wrong.
With that out of the way, let the backbiting, mud-slinging and unkind words begin!