Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:39 PM Jul 2015

Why Is the NY Times Basically Doing a Blackout on Bernie Sanders?

Has this been posted already? If so I missed it, and the title
does not come up on a DU google search.

Why Is the NY Times Basically Doing a Blackout on Bernie Sanders?
The New York Times' Sanders coverage is intellectually dishonest.
By William Boardman * Alternet * July 17, 2015

The front page story is about such issues as “work force anxieties,” “shrinking middle class,” “stagnant wages,” and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility.

That is the level of intellectual dishonesty actually achieved by the Times in its July 13 page one story headlined “Growth in the ‘Gig Economy’ Fuels Work Force Anxieties.” Two of the most relevant words excluded from the 1700-word story are “Bernie Sanders,” even though it includes two Republican and Hillary Clinton.

It’s intellectually dishonest to write about these issues without mentioning the Independent senator from Vermont now running for the Democratic nomination for president as a Democratic Socialist. It is also deceitful and would be journalistic malpractice for anyone purporting to practice actual journalism.

But the Times has long since ceased to be “the paper of record” in this country, which no longer has a paper (or any media) of record. The Times still serves, as it always has, as the voice of the establishment. That explains the paper’s “balanced” view here of the “gig economy” and the two generations of economic suffering it represents. Reporter Noam Scheiber’s anecdote-ridden story shimmers with an upper income bias, as befits any ambitious Times reporter looking with disdainful sympathy at lesser earners driven increasingly into jobs that are variously part-time, short-term, temporary, or freelance but almost universally more insecure and lower-paying than people could expect from the American economy 50 years ago. ~snio~

Bernie Sanders has railed against such economic injustice for almost as long, but Scheiber and/or his editors lack the integrity to mention that, even when they quote a supporter of Hillary Clinton saying: “People know things are changing. They don’t feel like anyone has a handle on it. There’s a yearning for a political vision that addresses that.”

Well, yes, that seems to be true. That also seems to explain why Bernie Sanders continues to surge in the polls since declaring for president in May.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-ny-times-basically-doing-blackout-bernie-sanders

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Is the NY Times Basically Doing a Blackout on Bernie Sanders? (Original Post) 99th_Monkey Jul 2015 OP
The media - print, broadcast, cable, and Internet - HooptieWagon Jul 2015 #1
Well, that does answer the question posed by the Alterneet article, for sure. 99th_Monkey Jul 2015 #2
Not too big a surprise I guess. GoneFishin Jul 2015 #3
To be fair, it has not been all like that. The Times has done a few hit pieces. merrily Jul 2015 #4
He's a threat to the corporate masters of government DJ13 Jul 2015 #5
Why would the NY Times mention him? SlipperySlope Jul 2015 #6
Where is Wall Street again? Hulk Jul 2015 #7
I believe it intersects with K Street. merrily Jul 2015 #11
Sanders scares the shit out them. AtheistCrusader Jul 2015 #8
+1 a huge bunch! Enthusiast Jul 2015 #13
NY Times? Sherman A1 Jul 2015 #9
Because he's a serious threat to the banksters and the MIC n/t eridani Jul 2015 #10
AND Robert Reich is featuring this article on his FB page Divernan Jul 2015 #12
MSNBC Punx Jul 2015 #14
Trump provides a great distraction <- this 99th_Monkey Jul 2015 #16
Because shareholders pay them too. nt raouldukelives Jul 2015 #15
 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
1. The media - print, broadcast, cable, and Internet -
Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:49 PM
Jul 2015

Is held in control of a few conglomerates... time-Warner, Clear Channel, etc. Large corporations aren't going to look favorably on a Democratic Socialist candidate. They've already invested heavily in their Third Way puppets. Also, Sanders doesn't have the budget to spend heavily on M$M. Clinton is expected to flood the market with ads. So M$M is also going to play favorites towards their best customer.
In Bernies favor, he's running a grass-roots campaign, which uses more word of mouth and alternative media (like social media) to spread the word. Clinton is running an astro-turf campaign, which has to spend much more to get their message out.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
2. Well, that does answer the question posed by the Alterneet article, for sure.
Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:55 PM
Jul 2015

I do like that this question is out there on the interwebs, rhetorical as it may be.

Newspaper of record my ass.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
4. To be fair, it has not been all like that. The Times has done a few hit pieces.
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 12:21 AM
Jul 2015

So, we can't really honestly complain about no coverage.

(if needed)

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
5. He's a threat to the corporate masters of government
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 12:27 AM
Jul 2015

It will only get worse the better he does.

On the other hand, supporters of a certain candidate should really question why their choice is spoken of in such glowing terms all the time, and wonder if what she really stands for.is in their best interests.



SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
6. Why would the NY Times mention him?
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:20 AM
Jul 2015

The purpose of the NY Times is to advance the candidates and causes they support, and diminish those that they do not. Until the paper decides to outright start attacking him there is no reason to mention him.

I'm sorry but the days of major media "covering" politics seem to be over. They all seem like they want to steer, spin, or manipulate their coverage to fit a preconceived frame.

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
9. NY Times?
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 03:42 AM
Jul 2015
I thought that newspaper folded years ago. Why on earth would anyone worry about what is published or not published by that tired old fish wrap ?

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
12. AND Robert Reich is featuring this article on his FB page
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 07:54 AM
Jul 2015

After being up overnight (9 hours), it already has over 16,000 likes and 6,000 shares!
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich?fref=nf

The media are pumping up Trump and playing down Bernie.

Data provided by Google to the journalism site FiveThirtyEight found that 46 percent of the media coverage over the last month about the GOP candidates was about Trump. Between June 14 and July 12, Trump got more coverage than the combined total of Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio, generally considered the leading GOP candidates.

Meanwhile, the media is barely covering the huge enthusiasm Bernie Sanders has been generating – and when it does, it describes the surge solely through the prism of Hillary rather than as a response to what Sanders is saying. The New York Times is hardly mentioning Bernie at all (its front-page story today is about Hillary's father).

Why is the media giving Trump so much attention and Sanders so little?

He then links directly to the Alternet article.

I really urge everyone to take the time to fully read this detailed article which excoriates not just the press in general, but the Times in particular, as intellectually dishonest and guilty of journalistic malpractice.

Punx

(446 posts)
14. MSNBC
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 10:13 AM
Jul 2015

Appears to be on a mission to go after Trump for reasons that escape me. Now I'm under no illusion that MSNBC is on our side, but it seems to me that Trump is the best friend the Democrats have right now, given the damage he is doing to the Republicans. Not sure why they are carrying water for the Repukes.

Perhaps it's because he talks about trade, a no-no or perhaps because he can't be controlled he threatens the power structure. Certainly he makes great theater, and provides great distraction.

Meanwhile almost no mention of Bernie, just the Hillary is inevitable type of comments.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Why Is the NY Times Basic...