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
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders
How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315
The New York Times ran a piece about Bernie Sanders Monday, a sort of left-handed compliment of a legislative profile. It was called "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors."
I took notice of the piece by Jessica Steinhauer because I wrote essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago. Mine, called "Four Amendments and a Funeral," was quite a bit longer. Sanders back then was anxious that people know how Congress worked, and also how it didn't work, so he invited me to tag along for weeks to follow the process of a series of amendments he tried (and mostly succeeded) to pass in the House.
I came to the same conclusions that Steinhauer did initially: that Sanders was uniquely skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.
"Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315
The New York Times ran a piece about Bernie Sanders Monday, a sort of left-handed compliment of a legislative profile. It was called "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors."
I took notice of the piece by Jessica Steinhauer because I wrote essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago. Mine, called "Four Amendments and a Funeral," was quite a bit longer. Sanders back then was anxious that people know how Congress worked, and also how it didn't work, so he invited me to tag along for weeks to follow the process of a series of amendments he tried (and mostly succeeded) to pass in the House.
I came to the same conclusions that Steinhauer did initially: that Sanders was uniquely skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.
"Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions."
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1438 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (30)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders (Original Post)
Miles Archer
Mar 2016
OP
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)1. More ...
more snips/
This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.
The second paragraph just reeks of a passage written by an editor. It's horrible English. Attention, New York Times: "A few stars here and there" is actually more than "the moon and a good part of the sun."
But the rest of these changes go to the heart of the meaning of the article, which is unusual and seemingly a nasty thing to do to the reporter, particularly since the changes read like talking points added by a Clinton aide. I would go ape if an editor pulled something like that on me in public.
If you're Sanders, you now know what's going to shake loose when reporting about you goes upstairs to the Times editors. It's not immoral or anything, just sort of crass. And odd, that they don't care that their readers now know, too.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)2. How sausages are made
An unpleasant look into the factories of the corporate media.
Good for Taibbi for drawing attention to this all-too-common practice of distortion.
Thanks for posting, Miles Archer!
2banon
(7,321 posts)3. Kickin' & a Recken'
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)5. Bernie's site still unaware of the change...looks fraudulent now
Sometimes I wish there were a real contact number for the campaign. Bernie's site linked the article and now when you access the current NYT article, it has changed. Looks like Bernie posted a fraudulent version.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)6. anybody know where we can view original?
I'd like to save it and send it around.