Following is my letter to the publisher of Connecticut's Stamford Advocate and Greenwich Time.
Mr. Durham Monsma
Publisher-Southern Connecticut Newspapers
Dear Mr. Monsma
I found yesterday's article by Brian Lockhart in your publications to be absolutely shameful. Your papers' coverage of the Lamont-Lieberman race and others has long been biased, but Lockhart's efforts to amplify Joe Lieberman's attempts to paint Ned Lamont as a racist are reprehensible.
Lockhart, in brazenly attempting to drum up interest in Lieberman's accusation, pointedly failed to mention that those fliers he quoted were distributed on cars at African-American churches and were purposely designed to insinuate that Ned Lamont was a racist. Not only is the charge reprehensible, but it is a dirty campaign trick, coming just a week before the election. Responsible newspapers debunk or ignore such political sleaze. Sadly, however, your papers, trumpet them and revel in them.
Lockhart wrote, "Now an aspect of Lamont's lifestyle he tried to prevent from becoming an issue -- his membership in Greenwich's exclusive Round Hill Club -- is being mocked on fliers circulated around the state by the Lieberman camp." Ned Lamont tried to prevent this from becoming an issue? Really? Ned Lamont is a man who for years has taught classes in an overwhelmingly poor and minority high school in Bridgeport. Prominent African-American leaders Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters are all campaigning for Mr. Lamont. Yet your reporter Brian Lockhart blatantly attempted to paint Lamont as a racist.
Although the article is reprehensible, sadly, it is but one of the latest examples of bias in your coverage of current and past political races. An earlier article on Lamont's surge to the lead in the polls carried the headline: "Lamont Gains Ground." By what twisted math does Greenwich Time consider a surge into the lead "gaining ground"? And now that the Q-Poll shows Lamont with a double-digit lead, will tomorrow's article read "Lamont Gains A Little More Ground"? This spring your reporter Neil Vigdor began an article regarding two Democratic candidates for the state house and senate with the dismissive and derisive expression "lattes and long shots." A headline at the end of that week stated "Democrats Cough Up 11th Hour Candidates." That sort of comment is downright insulting.
Further, Neil Vigdor's article today was filled with biased and unfair comments. Mr. Vigdor, parroting Republican Party talking points, stated that Ned Lamont "has become the darling of the party's left." How is it that 75% of the Democrats in this state who disagree with Joe Lieberman's position in support of the Iraq War constitute "the party's left"? If the overwhelming majority of the party supports a particular important position, that is the mainstream. And does your reporter consider the two-thirds of the state's voters- Democratic, independent, and Republican- who also oppose this war and believe that it should never have been fought also constitute "the left"? It is a silly statement and belies the bias and lack of sophistication of the reporter. But Mr. Vigdor goes on to write that "Lamont is trying to reverse a tide of Lieberman support in urban areas." That is absurd. To equate the vote of a couple of hundred party regulars nearly three months ago at the state convention with "a tide of Lieberman support in urban areas" is the sort of ridiculous statement that a responsible editor is supposed to cut out.
But it was Mr. Vigdor's attempt to amplify Lieberman's attempts at race-baiting that I believe were flat wrong. Once again, your reporter brought up that issue in his questions and articles, Vigdor asking a Bridgeport resident from Puerto Rico about "Lamont's decision to resign his membership from an exclusive club," and bringing up the issue with Jessie Jackson. Reverend Jackson got it right when he called it "race-baiting."
A reputable newspaper in this community that cares about journalistic ethics and professionalism should understand the difference between reporting on the issues and becoming complicit in campaign dirty tricks and race baiting. The latter we expect from Fox News, not from a major newspaper in the state of Connecticut.