Fightin' Ferrer

Submitted by Christie Rizk on November 7, 2005 - 11:36pm.

If I were Fernando Ferrer, tonight I would be sobbing like a little girl. He’s 38 points behind Mike Bloomberg in the mayoral race, and with voting day being tomorrow, there’s pretty much no way he can catch up. But he’s still out there, plugging away, trying to get his message out, and doing appearances with Barak Obama and Al Sharpton.

The media really needs to give the man more credit. All they’re really done is make fun of him, call him “feisty,” and be really condescending. I admire him for trying to take on Bloomberg and all his millions, even though it was pretty clear from the beginning that "Hizzona" was going to be re-elected, no matter who went up against him (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton).

The media as a whole has done a grave injustice to Fernando Ferrer. He deserved equal time (minus the sarcasm), and equal consideration. Even if he didn’t have a chance going in, he at least deserved to be heard, and not mocked for trying.

Joseph Michener @ November 8, 2005 - 1:58am

Christie~ I think you are absolutely correct. It seemed like Bloomberg had more than just the editorial board of the New York Times backing him. Imagine fighting the press and the seemingly unlimited campaign funds that Bloomberg had at his disposal. Ferrer's campaign never had a chance.

»

Ryan McConnell @ November 9, 2005 - 1:45pm

Christie...Is it necessarily wrong to describe Ferrer's actions as "feisty" during the mayoral debate if they were, indeed, feisty? Recall when Rick Lazio marched up to Hillary Clinton's podium during a debate several years back and confronted her. Is it more appropriate for the media to just recount what happened ("Lazio walked over to Clinton's podium..."), or is there a place for analysis and interpretation? I didn't see the Ferrer-Bloomberg debate, but if outlets as different as the Daily News and the Times use the same adjective to describe his actions, I tend to believe the description. (Plus, his name just begs for an adjective starting with the letter "F").

Also, I know he tried hard and he's probably a good man and all...but Ferrer was an awful candidate! Like Professor Penenberg noted last class, there didn't seem to be anyone who actually liked or had any enthusiasm for the man. Even Hillary Clinton was said to be lukewarm about his candidacy. So I don't think blaming Bloomberg's millions or the media coverage is enough when evaluating this election; Ferrer's inept campaign deserves it's share of blame, too.

»

Christie Rizk @ November 9, 2005 - 4:30pm

Ryan, I certainly don't think that Ferrer's loss can be blamed on the media or the fact that Bloomberg is rich. I know it sounds like that, but what I meant was that everyone simply assumed he would lose big from the beginning, and the media especially just seemed more interested in picking him apart rather than analyzing his message and his ideas, which really would have been more useful for voters.

As for the word "feisty," I certainly don't object to colorful or descriptive language in an article. The Lazio example was really good. However, the specific word, "feisty," seemed really condescending to me. Maybe it's just me. It's the specific word I object to.

»

Courtney F. Bal... @ November 9, 2005 - 7:06pm

I see the "fiesty" thing too. Wasn't there an episode of The West Wing (I know, it always seems to go back to The West Wing for me...) in which Josh didn't want Santos being described as "fiesty" because of its connotations? That said, I'm not sure what else a reporter could use to capture the quality. But if a fake political advisor is against it, it has to be wrong...Right? :)

»

Christie Rizk @ November 9, 2005 - 7:32pm

Well, TV does tend to get these things better than the actual politicians. =o)

»

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content