Local news readers expect more than quotes and quick headlines. They expect context. When key facts are repeatedly left out, the result isn’t just incomplete reporting it’s misleading.
That concern surfaced again following Rep. Mike Lawler’s recent town hall, where reports focused heavily on the removal of audience members and emotional reactions in the room. One voice, in particular, was prominently featured: Emily Feiner, a retired VA social worker who sharply criticized the congressman after two veterans were escorted out. Feiner was interviewed by Nancy Cutler of Lohud, who focused
on her perspective while leaving out additional context.
What readers were not told again is that Feiner herself was famously removed from a Lawler town hall last year in an almost identical incident. That earlier removal was widely covered, including video footage showing chants of “I.et her stay” as she was carried out. Those same chants were heard at the recent event.
This is not trivia. It is relevant background.
Feiner, a member of Indivisible Rockland, has a history of civic activism that includes attending multiple town halls and speaking out on issues affecting veterans and constituents. Among those escorted out was Maureen Morrissey’s husband, a veteran and politically active constituent. Maureen Morrissey, herself, is the founder of Fight Lawler and was also instrumental in initiating the Crowley “Jake Thomas Scandal,” with help from former Lohud journalist David McKay Wilson. Their presence underscores that the removed attendees were politically active participants, yet media coverage often framed them as passive victims who were fully recognized participants, not as props to the drama (which they actually were).
When the same individuals appear at multiple events involving the same public official, engage in similar behavior, trigger similar responses from security, and draw the same crowd reaction that is a pattern. Patterns help readers understand whether an event is isolated or recurring. Leaving that out changes how the story is perceived.
Equally troubling is source selection. In a room filled with constituents veterans, seniors, supporters, critics, and neutral attendees why was only the most well-known and controversial participant interviewed? Why no additional voices to reflect the range of reactions in the room? Why no acknowledgement that not everyone present viewed the removals the same way?
Some outlets have shown that fuller context is possible. The Yonkers Times, for example, openly discussed Feiner’s earlier removal and questioned whether these disruptions were spontaneous or organized. That piece was
clearly labeled as commentary. Readers knew what they were getting.
By contrast, presenting advocacy quotes as straight news while omitting a source’s history and the organized nature of other attendees blurs the line between reporting and narrative-building. Again, everyone following local and liberal media knows who Feiner and Morrissey are, yet that context was routinely left out.
Context isn’t bias – background isn’t an attack – and omission repeated enough stops being neutral
LOCAL NEWS CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER!!!