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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bernie Sanders
Showing Original Post only (View all)Robert Reich's comments about what the NYT did to Bernie yesterday. [View all]
I was so excited about the positive NYT article that I posted about it yesterday here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280145900
Then it got changed. A bunch of positive comments were removed.
This is Robert Reich's Facebook response. I don't think he'd mind me posting it here since not everyone goes to Facebook, and it's only 5 paragraphs.
The New York Times no longer reports all the news that's fit to print but only the news fit for Hillary Clinton.
Appearing in yesterdays morning edition of the New York Times was an article entitled Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors. It was the first article Ive read in the Times that praised Bernie. This one focused on legislative victories he's achieved for working people and the poor by quietly and persistently amending and changing bills.
I was going to share the article with you, but by yesterday afternoon it had been significantly and mysteriously altered to become less praiseworthy and more snide. The headline was changed to: Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. Several complimentary quotes that had appeared in the morning edition were deleted (such as one from Senator John McCain, and another from Warren Gunnels, Bernies long-time policy adviser, calling his strategy very successful.) New paragraphs were added that criticized Bernie. (For example: But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest he could succeed. Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes and a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.)
The original article had called Bernie an effective, albeit modest, legislator. In the altered version, an additional clause was added: enacting his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress.
Many of us have long suspected the Times of anti-Bernie partisanship. This particular instance proves the point. I publicly call on the Timess Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, to explain how an article praising Bernie Sanders the morning before several critical primaries could, just hours later, turn into an article criticizing him. Ms. Sullivan: Who at the Times made these changes, and why?
Appearing in yesterdays morning edition of the New York Times was an article entitled Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors. It was the first article Ive read in the Times that praised Bernie. This one focused on legislative victories he's achieved for working people and the poor by quietly and persistently amending and changing bills.
I was going to share the article with you, but by yesterday afternoon it had been significantly and mysteriously altered to become less praiseworthy and more snide. The headline was changed to: Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. Several complimentary quotes that had appeared in the morning edition were deleted (such as one from Senator John McCain, and another from Warren Gunnels, Bernies long-time policy adviser, calling his strategy very successful.) New paragraphs were added that criticized Bernie. (For example: But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest he could succeed. Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes and a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.)
The original article had called Bernie an effective, albeit modest, legislator. In the altered version, an additional clause was added: enacting his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress.
Many of us have long suspected the Times of anti-Bernie partisanship. This particular instance proves the point. I publicly call on the Timess Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, to explain how an article praising Bernie Sanders the morning before several critical primaries could, just hours later, turn into an article criticizing him. Ms. Sullivan: Who at the Times made these changes, and why?
I just canceled my subscription to that asshole newspaper. The customer rep asked why and I told her.
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A decision was made yesterday it seems by ALL the establishment media to not cover Bernie.
LiberalArkie
Mar 2016
#3
This happened to me. I was surprised when I got to the link and it wasn't very nice.
cyberpj
Mar 2016
#58
One of the most disgusting, despicable actions in the history of journalism.
Impedimentus
Mar 2016
#22
We need a massive movement for cancellations of subscriptions to the New York Times.
JDPriestly
Mar 2016
#43
I really wish ALL TRUE PROGRESSIVES would cancel their rag! Well done you!
in_cog_ni_to
Mar 2016
#50