Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumWhy 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.
Its 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 papers balanced view here of the gig economy and the two generations of economic suffering it represents. Reporter Noam Scheibers 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 dont feel like anyone has a handle on it. Theres 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
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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)I do like that this question is out there on the interwebs, rhetorical as it may be.
Newspaper of record my ass.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)So, we can't really honestly complain about no coverage.
(if needed)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)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)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.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)Those peckers have a LOT to lose, that's why!
merrily
(45,251 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Hillary doesn't.
Ask yourself why.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)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.
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.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)couldn't be truer