Monday, April 29, 2019

Pursuing the Story

In the HudsonValley360 article last week about a tangle between him and John Friedman during a brief recess at a Common Council meeting, Council president Tom DePietro was quoted as saying, "The less said about this unfortunate incident, the better for everyone." Roger Hannigan Gilson is not abiding by DePietro's wishes. Today, on his blog The Other Hudson Valley, Gilson offers this followup to the story: "Hudson Police Investigating Violent City Meeting."


  1. But in this case our self-styled "victim" is THE MOST PHYSICALLY VIOLENT INDIVIDUAL I've ever encountered in Hudson.

    That's an easy one, because I've never been physically attacked by anyone else, not in Hudson and not anywhere else in the world.

    For those without firsthand experience who may not factor in the "victim's" own history of violence, simply recall the startling effect of his vile verbal attack on the City's former Corporate Counsel, a man whom most would count among the admirably mild-mannered:

  2. Carole, the word on the street is that you are a campaign advisor to Rick Rector. If true, I think your readers should know.

    1. If true then I agree, thanks for asking PM.

    2. Rick Rector is my friend, has been for years. That is no secret to regular readers of Gossips. When he seeks my advice, I give it. You should know, however, that he seeks the advice of many before making an independent decision. But I didn't realize that Rick was running against Tom DePietro, which your concern attached to this particular post, which simply links to someone else's report about an incident I readily admit I did not witness, seems to suggest.

    3. Carole, the trouble with Gossips is now broader than your treatment of any one candidate or race.

      To better illustrate the more general problem when journalists carry water for specific candidates, over the weekend I wrote to ask why you hadn't commented on the mayor's rfp, posted Friday, for a commercial enterprise in our public waterfront park? In the past that same issue was a major concern shared by both of us, so what has changed?

      Also over the weekend I assisted you on your Melville post (as always, I did not ask to be credited), though you never replied to my email on the same day asking about the waterfront park. Is it fair to interpret your silence as tacit support for a mayor who previously shared our loathing for this bad idea but now champions it?

      I stated that I continue to support the mayor, although "There's risk involved if Rick accepts the acquiescence of supporters as a carte blanche, particularly as he's not above misunderstanding and error." 

      In a second email to you I shared my concerns that the mayor - and far too many others - may not grasp the true strength of the City's position relative to the Colarusso company's failed lawsuit. In my email I included a letter I'd already sent to Mayor Rector, which encouraged specific actions founded on our current strength and warned against adopting a needlessly weak position.

      As with the earlier issue (the leasing of our public park), neither of my emails to you or the mayor concerning the Core-Riverfront Zoning District have merited a reply.

      Having worked together on the South Bay issue since 2010 (and always declining the many credits you offered), these new developments represent a sad departure.

      Henceforth, if Gossips will only cover issues which show favored candidates in the best possible light, then it doesn’t really matter which race is being discussed. It would be perfectly reasonable for readers to assume that 1)all of Gossips positive coverage is for favored candidates, and 2) all of Gossips negative coverage is for rejected candidates.

      Indeed this is now, already, how things appear.

      T. O'Connor

  3. Certainly, we would all devoutly wish for a local news organ which would speak truth to power and bring to light all those facts which threaten and discomfit the corrupt and complacent.

    However, that a blog is "journalism", or that a blogger's point of view is or should be "news", I believe is a misapprehension. The very name "Gossips" amply points this out. Any blogger is, and should be, free to take note of whatever he/she finds of interest, and editorialize as he/she finds appropriate. Those commenting are equally free to express their own views, and I am not aware that this particular blogger has ever edited or suppressed those comments, no matter how critical or contradictory to her own opinions; or, indeed, to her very place in our little world.

    It may be, as the poet says, that only God can make a tree, but anyone willing to summon the requisite time and energy can make a blog; rather than attempting to dictate the content of someone else's.

    1. White Whale I can't agree more, although Gossips is a news site by any name. You've simply fallen for a label.

      We do agree that the web is a free marketplace, in which case you shouldn't have any problem when I point out hypocrisy, or merely ask people whom I thought were my friends why they won't answer my emails.

      Actually, this town may be too small for the "free marketplace" attitude. Consumers have power too, and the consequences of Gossips' perceived advocacy are already unhappy enough. People are talking.

    2. As long as they keep talking ... all publicity is good publicity.

    3. Our 1st Amendment doesn’t define what it means by “press.” It does not say that only journalists who are 100% accurate and unbiased count.

      Indeed, there are plenty of “respectable” mainstream publications which make far more egregious and disastrous errors than any blogger ever could. (Judith Miller publishing fake news about WMD on the front page of the New York Times, anyone?)

      Many here don’t agree with FOX News, and think it is often dishonest and partisan. (Actually, it is almost always dishonest and partisan). But it is journalism, nonetheless. Just not the kind of journalism I prefer.

      It also should be noted that many of our founding fathers—including Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton et al.—were backers of and anonymous writers for publications which were often far more scurrilous and disreputable than any blog. Some of these publications they back or contributed to, under the cover of pseudonyms, were even published in Hudson, New York.

      GoR is journalism by any standard.