New York Times (6/14/17) suggests Bernie Sanders incited violence with words like “demagogue” and “corporate media.”
New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor (6/14/17) started with a false premise and patched together a dodgy piece of innuendo and guilt-by-association in order to place the blame for a shooting in Virginia on “the most ardent supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders.”
We learned in the wake of an attack on Monday that left five injured, including Republican House Whip Steve Scalise, that the shooter, James T. Hodgkinson (who was subsequently killed by police), had been a Sanders campaign volunteer, and that his social media featured pictures of the Vermont senator and his brand of progressive, anti-Republican language. This was enough for Alcindor to build a piece based on the premise that Sanders’ “movement” had been somehow responsible for the attacks, and was thus “tested” by them.
From the beginning, Alcindor framed the shooting as essentially tied to the Sanders campaign by virtue of Hodgkinson’s political sensibilities:
The most ardent supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders have long been outspoken about their anger toward Republicans—and in some cases toward Democrats. Their idol, the senator from Vermont, has called President Trump a “demagogue” and said recently that he was “perhaps the worst and most dangerous president in the history of our country.”
Now, in Mr. Sanders’ world, his fans have something concrete to grapple with: James T. Hodgkinson, a former volunteer for Mr. Sanders’ presidential campaign, is suspected of opening fire on Republican lawmakers practicing baseball in Alexandria, Va.
Sanders’ supporters are positioned as crazed religious adherents, with an “idol” rather than a political leader. These “fans,” the article continues, “now…have something concrete to grapple with”—apparently in contrast to the non-concrete claims of Sanders that Trump is a dangerous demagogue.
The sleaziest section, and one that solicited the most online outrage, uncritically echoed the conventional wisdom that Sanders fans were uniquely menacing and aggressive:
To be sure, supporters of Mr. Trump, as well as Mr. Trump himself, have assailed opponents and the news media.
But long before the shooting on Wednesday, some of Mr. Sanders’ supporters had earned a belligerent reputation for their criticism of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and others who they believed disagreed with their ideas. Sanders fans, sometimes referred to derogatorily as “Bernie Bros” or “Bernie Bots,” at times harassed reporters covering Mr. Sanders and flooded social media with angry posts directed at the “corporate media,” a term often used by the senator.
The suspect in the shooting in Virginia put a new spotlight on the rage buried in some corners of the progressive left.
Alcindor insists Sanders supporters had “earned a belligerent reputation” without examining whether or not this claim was supported by any empirical data whatsoever. (One study found Clinton and Trump fans to be far more aggressive than Sanders backers online, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a good narrative.)
Who’s pushing the term “Bernie Bros”? Is the image being presented of a seething cauldron of leftist hate at all fair—especially relative to the other candidates? It’s not examined. They are “sometimes referred” to that way—and that’s enough to prop up collective responsibility for the actions of one disturbed man among Sanders’ tens of millions of followers and partisans.
The literal “to be sure” paragraph, ostensibly acknowledging that Trump and his supporters have “assailed opponents and the news media,” actually serves to equate those assaults—which are quite literal—with the “belligerent reputation” of Sanders supporters. Never mind that you’ll never find Sanders urging supporters to “kick the crap out of” protesters, as Trump has (Slate, 3/15/16), or reminiscing about how “I love the old days” when “they’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”
The first Sanders supporter to be heard from in the Times piece is former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, who agrees with the article’s premise that “both sides need to look in the mirror,” and warns that “we have to decide what kind of language we are going to use in our political discourse.” (One gets the sense that “corporate media,” cited as a sign of “Bernie Bro” belligerence, is the kind of phrase Alcindor wants to see stricken from the discourse.)
Alcindor does quote Daily News columnist and Black Lives Matter supporter Shaun King saying it “doesn’t make sense” to blame all Sanders supporters for one individual’s actions, though he’s not given a chance to develop the idea.
It’s not until paragraph 22 of the article that a meaningful rebuke of its premise is presented. National Nurses United union head RoseAnn DeMoro ends the article, telling Alcindor that it’s a “‘boldface lie’ to connect the shooting to Mr. Sanders’s push for opposing Mr. Trump’s proposals.” The New York Times here plays the “both sides” game to perfection, promoting the premise that Sanders laid the ground for radical leftist violence in the headline and lede, while tossing in a counter-argument at the very end.
Considering only 41 percent of people read past the headline, and only 11 percent of Americans are likely to finish an article, it’s still reassuring to know some readers will stick around long enough to see meaningful pushback.
Well before then, Fox News contributor and pro-Trump flack Harlan Hill would offer up some of the more cynical comments of the piece:
Harlan Hill, a political consultant based in New York who supports Mr. Trump, said people should not blame Mr. Sanders personally, but he said the senator’s description of the president as “dangerous” illustrated the “apocalyptic terms” and “melodrama” that have created a combustible political atmosphere.
“It is a passive justification for the kind of violence we saw,” Mr. Hill said. “If you don’t believe that, and you’re just casually using these words, then you should accept the consequence of those words because you are empowering the people that follow you to take whatever sort of action that they deem necessary to avert what is being described to them as a potential genocidal leader.”
So calling the president “dangerous”—when he’s actively tried to ban Muslims from the US, deported immigrants at record rates, pulled the US out of the world’s only meaningful anti-climate change agreement, worked to take health care from millions, and ratcheted up tensions with Iran and North Korea—is “passive justification for the kind of violence” carried out on Monday? Alcindor allows this self-serving and patently absurd premise to go unchallenged, as a paid advocate for Trump eagerly uses the tragedy to paint his side as the real victim of political extremism, rather than its No. 1 champion.
The innuendo and guilt-by-association only got worse from there:
On Tuesday, Mr. Hodgkinson posted a cartoon on Facebook explaining “How does a bill work?” “That’s an easy one, Billy,” the cartoon reads. “Corporations write the bill and then bribe Congress until it becomes law.”
“That’s Exactly How It Works….” Mr. Hodgkinson wrote.
That is not far from Mr. Sanders’ own message. On Saturday, during a conference in Chicago filled with Sanders supporters, he thundered, “Today in the White House, we have perhaps the worst and most dangerous president in the history of our country,” to cheers from thousands. “And we also have, not to be forgotten, extreme right-wing leadership in the US House and the US Senate.”
See, the killer vaguely acknowledged the obvious reality that corporations influence legislation, and on Saturday Senator Sanders said something mean about Trump. It’s all connected.
Left unmentioned in the piece were two entirely relevant pieces of context that would mitigate the burden of responsibility for Sen. Sanders and provide alternative theories of the crime. The first is Hodgkinson’s history of domestic violence—a common factor in most mass shootings (CounterSpin, 6/17/16).
“Mass shooting experts say past violent conduct and access to weapons, not specific ideology, are biggest risk factors,” said Alex Yablon of The Trace, a website dedicated to gun violence in the United States.
The second—and perhaps most salient, given the tone of the piece—was Hodgkinson’s obsession with President Trump as a pro-Russian “traitor.” His Facebook was filled with content calling Trump a “traitor,” including a petition insisting “Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy” and “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
Since Hodgkinson’s political leanings are being probed as somehow responsible for the shootings, it’s curious why the New York Times decided to highlight his pro-Sanders stance and not his obsession with Trump as treasonous pro-Russian agent—an accusation that Sanders has not aggressively pressed and, indeed, has sometimes been on the receiving end of. Why “Attack Tests Movement Sanders Founded” and not “Attack Test Democrats’ Trump-as-Russian-Agent Inquiry”? Why note Hodgkinson’s support for Sanders but not his love for Rachel Maddow, more than half of whose show, one study found, is dedicated to the Russia/Trump story?
The answer is that the former is easy—and convenient—to smear, whereas the latter implicates a whole host of powerful institutions: the Democratic leadership, most major media and, above all, the New York Times itself, which has published, and thus legitimized, the most extreme and irresponsible fringe of the Russia/Trump dot-connectors in the form of Louise Mensch (FAIR.org, 3/31/17).
Of course, neither Sanders nor Trump-as-Russian-agent media personalities are responsible for what Hodgkinson did Monday, but it’s notable that only one is being blamed. Sanders unleashing crazed “Bernie Bros” is a simple narrative that reinforces existing, media-flattering narratives, whereas the latter is far messier, and would require the New York Times to examine its own role. Guess which one we’ll be getting nonstop coverage of in the coming days?
ACTION: Please contact the New York Times and ask for more responsible coverage of the Virginia shooting incident.
CONTACT:
Email: letters@nytimes.com
Twitter: @NYTimes
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your messages to the New York Times in the comments for this post.
The major research on political violence (Randolph Roth, American Homicide) attributes it to fatalistic attitudes, the idea that nothing is going to change for the better. Pointing out that things should change for the better is the exact opposite of that.
Bernie is not to blame for fatalism. His healthcare for all act would really do a lot to change how we talk about progressive empowerment and rights, which, besides a huge lobby, is one of the reasons why it’s opposed and literally said to be impossible (LA Times, Washington Post, Paul Krugman, Wall Street Journal, Daily Kos, it goes on and on). Bernie is trying to end the cold war on the American population that this guy got involved in, and have some change happen for the people.
A shame there’s no public editor at the NYT anymore. It’s almost like they don’t want to hear from us.
~
I’m surprised that Alcindor didn’t blame Peter Finches character in Network–“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.” Apparently Alcindor is sensitive to the term “corporate media”. My advice to Alcindor is quit the corporate media and find a real journalism position, not beholding to anyone or anything, just objective writing with more truth than fiction.
Will His Travesty tweet kudos to the Times for “finally printing some Real News!”?
Sent to following to the nyt:
It would seem that the NYT has resorted to yellow journalism with this 6/14 hit piece by Alcindor conflating the VA shooter with all Bernie supporters. It is so slanted and slippery I nearly fell over trying to read it…and as an old grandmother that could prove fatal. As to Alcindor’s reference to the mythical “Bernie Bros”…I don’t know any. I only seem to know Bernie Grandmas who fervently desire politicians who are as intelligent, moral and decent as Bernie…not as an “idol” but as a role model. The NYT can do better than to run something that doesn’t pass the False News/yellow journalism sniff test.
First time I’ve written in on an article, it’s that bad.
There’s no point denying the bad behavior of the Bernie Bros. Bernie himself had to address the problem.
“Top Sanders campaign aides have quietly reached out to senior officials in the Clinton campaign and women like Walsh personally to apologize for Bro behavior. Online, aides are pushing their digital community to police itself and keep the Bros quiet. And some volunteer members of Sanders’s digital army are scrambling into action, reporting offenders and moderating bro-y posts.
“Still, the Bros break through, and there’s real worry in corners of Sanders-world about it.
“On Thursday, the BBC catalogued social media attacks on black pundits and women who opine on Bernie. Mashable posted a ton of screenshots of Bro attacks Friday morning.
“Their vaginas are making terrible choices!” wrote a Sanders supporter in the comments under a photo of New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Clinton. The New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum recently complained of being called a “psycho” and a “bitch” on Twitter after saying something positive about Clinton.”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-bernie-bros?utm_term=.lsrwWRLEG#.emXLDM0Qm
Glenn Greenwald, “The Intercept”:
Then there’s the most widely cited example, used by that Mashable article as well as one from the BBC titled “Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online.” This example originated with the New Yorker TV critic (and Clinton supporter) Emily Nussbaum, who claimed that she was called a “psycho” by the “Feel the Bern crew” after she praised Clinton. Nussbaum’s claim was then repeatedly cited by pro-Clinton media figures when repeating the “Bernie Bro” theme. The problem with this example? The person who called her a “psycho” is a right-wing Tea Party supporter writing under a fake Twitter account of a GOP congressman — not remotely a Sanders supporter.
The myth of the BernieBros was a Clinton campaign creation. In fact, huge numbers of women supported Bernie Sanders.
“Myth of the BernieBros”? Don’t make me laugh… It’s a FACT!
The fact of the matter is that the BernieBro meme was a creation of Clinton campaign operatives, that snake David Brock and his ilk.
Maybe you’re not old enough to remember the “Obama boys.” When you’re a presidential candidate who stands for nothing, the only way you can win is to tear down your opponent. And when you’re opponent is a person of integrity, that means making stuff up. Didn’t work last time. Didn’t work this time. Third time’s a charm, maybe? Don’t mind me–I’m just another female bro ;)
And indeed you will find that the same “journalist,” Rebecca Traister, promoted the “Obama Boy” myth in 2008 and the “Bernie Bro” myth in 2015.
First of all i think there is a difference between “bad behavior” and attempted murder. That being said, i don’t understand the continued hatred after Clinton got the nomination and then lost to the worst republican candidate ever.
I guess i’ll never understand.
As far as the incident itself. The NTY has had plenty of opportunity to come down hard on the right wing ideology of Trump supporters after far more numerous acts of violence by said supporters. But alas, I’ve seen no criticism of the right wingers.
Super clear case of false equivalency and just sickening journalism by a bought and paid for corporate media whore.
Peter L:
Sure there is, because the BB concept is an invention, much like this NY Times “reporting”.
Amanda Marcotte is especially guilty of pushing this invention at Salon.
Also see the sharonsj point.
Boycott the New York Times!
Stop attacking Bernie with facts!!
For further consideration, check out what the NYT did to Lee Fang who hosts a comedic news program on RT’s dime.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/06/lee-camp-write-propaganda-ny-times-demonstrated-article.html
It’s Lee CAMP, not Lee Fang (the writer for Intercept). But an excellent reference to yet another absurdly slanted piece in the grey lady.
The NYT article laying blame at Bernie supporters is nothing but trying to purge the DNC so it is only those who follow the whims of the DNC. The NYT article was typical of what is has become – a corporate media, deflect blame, yellow journalist organization. Your rebuff is also a bit lopsided. Many people who would have voted for Bernie were Never Hillary. Have we failed to remember who was paying protesters at Trump campaign for the purpose of creating stories? Did you forget it was her “turn?” Who was always treated positively in the election? Clinton was going to be the corporate voice. (Who did the CEOs all back? Who did Wall Street all back? Who did most the oligarchs back?) Bernie supporters are upset more at the DNC for its abuse than trying to fight every little thing Trump – because Bernie would have probably been able to win. It is Hillary supporters more than Bernie supporters and Trump supporters that constantly are raising the rhetoric level. Rhetoric if you recall was what the guy who knifed and killed those individuals in Portland – he was Never Hillary, Never Trump. His anger was directed at both sides, Yes he to was a Bernie supporter but that was because Clinton is oligarchy approved and so many on the left are failing to see that the RNC and DNC are not that different. The reality is the left is being far more violent, far more aggressive, and “the resistance” is very dangerous to our system of Government. And this is more from Hillary supporters than Bernie. We hold elections every 2 years for Congress and 4 for President. There is no need for “it’s the end of the world propaganda.” The pendulum will swing back and forth, and America will survive four years of Trump. What it won’t survive is the attempt by the DNC to use corporate media to again control a narrative, blame the loss on Sander supporters, in a weak and clearly manipulative attempt to lay a foundation for “uniting” the party under the the same oligarchs who control the the RNC but use a different corporate filing.
Simple question: Is “Adam Johnson” a Macedonian troll?
Yes, Adam has been cleverly concealing his identity as a Macedonian troll for years. All those articles he has written for FAIR were actually Russkie propaganda! The real question is- are you a human troll, or bot troll? Because if you’re a human troll, you’re a really lazy and/or dumb one.
“Corporations write the bill and then bribe Congress until it becomes law.” I wasn’t surprised to hear there were lobbyists on the field at the Congressional baseball practice
Does the NYT enquire into the political allegiances of cops that shoot unarmed blacks?
All the hate, rage, and McCarthy Russia-madness was created by the DNC, which also hates Sanders. They could at least lay the blame in the right place – but then we know who they work for.
This is what I sent to the NYT.
NYT “News”
I find it interesting that the NYT has such obvious slanted articles. Gone are the days of actually reporting facts now it is just sling mud till something sticks then exploit that till the next opportunity appears. It would be one thing if it was an occasional article was bias but it seems that every article I read from the NYT is clearly bias to the DNC’s narrative. Are you owned by the DNC?
I used to think better of the person that owns your news outlet but another of America’s elite has gone down the dark path.
I consider myself to be socially liberal (open minded and progressive) and fiscally conservative (cautious and discreet) but the supposed news you generate does nothing to support either of those positions as the rhetoric you disseminate does nothing but harm to the well meaning people of this country. This is just my opinion, no facts just biased opinion, much like your “news”.
All you lunatic Sanders supporters should be institutionalized
And who is the one that’s close to the fascist end of the so-called “Political Horseshoe”?
Hey, “fred bear”, are you related to Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear? Да товарищ (yes, comrade).
Yamiche Alcindor’s disgraceful and dishonest hit “piece” smearing Bernie Sanders, as if he
and those who agree with his common sense message were responsible for
the Virginia shooter, would most certainly inspire me to cancel my subscription had
I not already done that years ago when you sold America an illegal and immoral war on the citizens of Iraq.
With the least respect possible,
Jim Earl
Los Angeles
Judith Miller, white courtesy telephone … Judith Miller, white courtesy telephone …
Wow, how much did Hillary pay you for this smear piece?
I have experienced many twitter responses from Bernie supporters that are as rabid as those I see from Trump supporters. I’d like to see FAIR criticize other media outlets as much as it does NYT & WaPo.
The liberals will throw Bernie Sanders under the bus, but this won’t stop conservatives from blaming liberalism itself for the tragedy that occurred. Yet the funny part of all this is that blaming Bernie will only lead liberals to once again stick their heads in the sand for the next eight years, while conservatives are sticking their heads in the sand over climate change. As long as there is plenty of sand to stick heads in, everybody will be “safe” in their own sand bubble of reality. Sanders is that sand, now, and everybody will be happy and comfortable in their own little worldviews. Now excuse me while I put my hand in front of my eyes and block out everything that I don’t like. Now all the world is anew again!
I worked as a volunteer for Bernie, and I met lots of wonderful people. My favorite part of his campaign was in Portland, when the little blue bird flew down to the podium and sat listening to Bernie. : )
My least fav orite part of the campaign was when the AP announced during the primary, that “Hillary won!’
Ever since then, I look at every newspaper sory and wonder——-is this story even true?
So much of what is supposed to be journalism seems to have more opinions than actual or believable news anymore.
So—- if newspapers and writers are going to write things that seem to suggest that Bernie is the fault of the attacked basball playing republicans —–..then I guess that the writer should also condem other connected items such as what kind of shoes the shooter was wearing and was it a popular rifle style, and who made his glasses, and what kind of beard did the shooter have——–all of which tells us nothing——-all this does is make me look at the publication and writer and wonder—–how do some writers fall into this journalist career?
you bring up a good point that i tried to make but failed. Now the media is super concerned about what Bernie says and how it may influence some one to violence or (what they really care about) possibly influence people to like his ideas.
But during the 2016 Dem primary Bernie was iced out. If not for independent journalism and youtube, you would have hardly known HRC had a primary opponent until the rallies got so big they had to devote some coverage to his campaign. I mean they showed and empty trump podium while Bernie was speaking to thousands at a rally.
Now the MSM is all about telling the truth after their anointed candidate lost. They hypocrisy is mind blowing. I don’t consume corporate news anymore. I’m done.
Keep up the good work. Attached is what I sent to letters@nytimes.com
It seems to me that the following piece by Johnson raises some credible criticisms of Alcindor’s piece.
https://fair.org/home/action-alert-with-sleazy-innuendo-nyt-lays-virginia-attack-at-bernie-sanders-feet/
I’m not sure where to direct my comment. It seems that the NYT no longer has a public editor/ombudsman.
Before the election of 2016, there were on “the Daily Kos,” a Democratic website, what appeared to be many “comments” attached to blog articles and these comments pretended to be from Bernie Sanders supporters. They were very vicious, obscene, misspelled, and ungrammatical. They were attacking Hillary Clinton and they continued long after Bernie had endorsed Mrs. Clinton. I am, personally, very critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton but thought these comments were crude and uncivil and not a positive contribution to any discussion. We now know why there were many comments on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton that appeared in such shabby English. These comments were written by Russians with poor English skills. So enough about Sanders’ supporters being uncivil to Mrs. Clinton. They were the Russians, damn it!!!
As a Conservative of 45 years, even I, after reading your Bernie Sanders “hit piece” can say only Wow ! Your level of professionalism
has declined to the point of making your entire organization nearly irrelevant. Save what’s left (or right) while you still have readers.
Shame on you, NYT
As a journalist myself, you REALLY disappoint me.
It is your job as the Fourth Estate for be the watchdog of government to insure the voice of the people is heard, to seek and report truth at all cost, to hold accountable any elected official whose actions are corrupt, and who is failing to represent the people.
You’ve sold out – and perhaps sold your soul – for the almighty dollar.
You will pay a very high price one day for your greed and irresponsibility – and unfortunately, everyone everywhere will suffer due to no fault of their own.