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
Hillary's Campaign Repays Bernie For His Positive Message About Her w Clintonian Smears & Innuendos
".....Last month, as Bernie started gaining more and more traction with Democratic voters in key states, Clinton headquarters started pushing surrogates to ramp up the attacks, and even gave the duller ones verbal lines to use against him...."
A few days ago, Rima Regas, writing for Alternet, exposed the ugly truth about the media's relationship with the Bernie Sanders campaign, namely that the mainstream media undermines him at every turn. It will only get worse as more Americans find out about him and his program (primarily via word-of-mouth). Regas asserts that the media is colluding with the Clinton machine. I wouldn't doubt it, not for a moment.
When analyzing the quantity and content of the vast majority of what is said and written about Sanders, his campaign platform, and appearances, one finds a running theme across the so-called liberal media. The New York Times has been called out by more than one analyst, myself included, for its complete lack of serious coverage of Bernie Sanders.
Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.
In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are being described. The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic socialist are not interchangeable terms.)
While the age of a candidate might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.
...The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and comments sections of all the major publications, and just about everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason Horowitz' piece, "Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His 'Political Revolution'" drew over 1600 comments, double what the most popular columns usually fetch, with most in protest over the obvious bias of the piece and the Times' egregious lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders news.
cont'
Since joining the staff at the New York Times, Maggie Haberman has written about Sanders on fewer than a handful of occasions, while she has written about the other candidates in the race more often. While it is understandable that Hillary Clinton would be the subject of more numerous articles, it makes no sense for Martin O'Malley to have more articles written about him than Sanders, given the pecking order that emerged right from the start, yet that is what has transpired so far.
In articles that address various aspects of the Democratic side of the primary, Senator Sanders' ability to succeed is always described in doubtful terms, even as Hillary Clinton's troubles in the polls are being described. The New York Times has published fewer than a dozen pieces that are Sanders campaign-specific and each is problematic in the way he is portrayed. Most often, Sanders' age and hair are highlighted, and the incorrect moniker "socialist" is applied. (Socialist and Democratic socialist are not interchangeable terms.)
While the age of a candidate might matter to some when thinking about a candidate's experience or mental capacity, Bernie Sanders is 73, only six years older than Hillary Clinton. His mental capacity has never been a subject of contention. One can only conclude from the repetition of negative references, that writers are attempting to condition readers into thinking of Sanders as the "unkempt" elderly stereotype.
...The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position. This behavior hasn't gone unnoticed by readers. You can see numerous complaints from readers about the Times organization's bias toward Sanders. You see it in the New York Times comments section, on the Facebook pages and comments sections of all the major publications, and just about everywhere else. Readers complain about the lack of substantive coverage as well as the bias in what little is published. The Times' Jason Horowitz' piece, "Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His 'Political Revolution'" drew over 1600 comments, double what the most popular columns usually fetch, with most in protest over the obvious bias of the piece and the Times' egregious lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders news.
cont'
~snip~
Bernie's campaign has been unique in that he never utters a negative word about his opponents-- not the Wall Street-owned Clinton nor the buffoonish O'Malley, who, after a career as an aggressive centrist and corporatist, is trying, unsuccessfully, to mimic Bernie's decades in politics. But the Clinton machine is "unleashing the hounds." In June McCaskill ran to MSNBC's Republican morning show to argue that Bernie is too liberal to be elected. “I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist,” she said, something she reiterated last month on CNN: "I think the question that some of us have is can someone who has said, 'I'm not a Democrat,' has chosen the title of socialist, is that person really electable?" Last month, as Bernie started gaining more and more traction with Democratic voters in key states, Clinton headquarters started pushing surrogates to ramp up the attacks, and even gave the duller ones verbal lines to use against him.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Hold me, I'm scared.
Whatever shall we do?
