The first sentence of the lead story in yesterday’s New York Times (5/19/16) had some surprising news:
Senator Bernie Sanders is opening a two-month phase of his presidential campaign aimed at inflicting a heavy blow on Hillary Clinton in California….
That would be odd behavior—a political campaign having the professed aim of damaging an opponent rather than advancing its candidate. The New York Times wouldn’t lead with this sensational claim unless it had hard evidence, right?
Well, you have to go to the seventh paragraph of the story—co-bylined by Patrick Healy, Yamiche Alcindor and Jeremy W. Peters—before you find an actual quote from anybody. And that’s this:
Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, said the campaign did not think its attacks would help Mr. Trump in the long run, but added that the senator’s team was “not thinking about” the possibility that they could help derail Mrs. Clinton from becoming the first woman elected president.
This is Bad Journalism 101: You come up with a thesis, like “Bernie Sanders wants to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of beating Donald Trump.” You take your thesis to your source, and ask them to agree with it; like any sensible spokesperson, they decline to comment on it. You take their no-comment as an endorsement of your thesis—and that becomes the lead headline in the nation’s most influential newspaper:
As a bonus, you get to make a front-page allusion to violence on the part of Senator Sanders, which bolsters the idea—advanced by phantom chair-throwing incidents—that the Sanders campaign is a dangerous menace. (Note that the story’s original headline was the less-inflammatory “Bernie Sanders’s Campaign Accuses Head of DNC of Favoritism“—which became the more slanted “Bernie Sanders’s Defiance Strains Ties With Top Democrats” before settling on the final smear.)
The real problem that the Times has with the Sanders campaign, I would suggest, is revealed at the end of that lead, where Healy et al. write that Sanders plans on “amassing enough leverage to advance his agenda at the convention in July—or even wrest the nomination from her.”
Yes, the New York Times has the scoop: Bernie Sanders is secretly hoping to win the election!
Healy is one of the Times reporters who wrote, back in October, about “Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest.” The Times will not forgive Sanders for proving them wrong.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. He can be followed on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
For a short story, it was the best commentary on the editors of the Times this year!
I get so tired of the Times using news pages to “sneak” in editorial ideas. Wow, has the Times come low from its relatively reliable past. Big business has its claws in everywhere.
So transparent in an ugly way. All of these corporate sponsored “news” sources just strengthen Bernies movement…. We are smart enough to see through the crap that’s why we support Bernie.
ABSOLUTELY!
An admirable story, but can FAIR go beyond this exposé to investigate *why* NYT has put its great grey fingers on the political scales, beyond saying the “great news firewall” has been breached? Can’t FAIR find dissenting voices at the Times who can shed light on who the influencers are, or compile data that might indicate what’s going on? Until there is at least a hypothesis about where the corruption comes from, it’s only griping and nothing will change. Ask: Why is this Bernie-bashing happening? Who is bending editorial ears and how?
All of mainstream media is owned/funded by the most greedy of the greedy rich. As for why the most wealthy are always the most greedy, this has something to do with pride.
No, not pride. It has to do with sickness. Enough is never enough for these morally bankrupt people
All they care is themselves! Nothing else matters! Beyond pathetic and disgusting
Our intelligent middle-class, the forth of society that is paid a forth of our Empire plunder to be the slave-drivers for the rich, a forth of the plunder being more then enough to free the lower half from poverty, far more then enough to keep 23% of our children from going to bed hungry, yet in our “sickness” we hoard it all to ourselves.
So, from one sick person to another, when are we going to get an attitude adjustment?
The New York Times and the Washington Post are both deeply in the bag for Hillary Clinton. The New York Times has run articles that appeared to actually have very positive spins on Bernie Sanders only to then revise those articles after they have been linked to from across the Internet. Of course the revision was tilted almost 180° in opposite. So you at you tell me what that is by the New York Times. The Washington Post on the other hand found a way to run dozens of permutations of negative Bernie Sanders articles in an incredibly short period.
Absolutely correct! Spot on comment.
Guest on CrossTalk
“I blame the American mainstream media,
for Americans are never informed, they are
kept ignorant.”
But, I’m an American and very well informed, partly because I choose to watch this show. Yes, the corporate rich own/fund all of mainstream media, yes they keep the public ignorant of the harm done by Empire USA. But, are they trying to fool the public, or are they doing what best pleases the public?
No small matter, for if the majority of Americans love the wealth we gain from our invasions for plunder and Empire expansion, if they are kept ignorant to keep their conscience from being bothered, then electing new leaders will never solve the problem. For then the moral fabric of society needs a massive attitude adjustment.
The New York Times is dead. It is now a propaganda machine for the Clinton campaign. Have cancelled, and have donated the cash to the Sander’s campaign. Of course, now that Mrs. Clinton has informed us all that she is the nominee (ahahaha…we are STILL in our primaries and caucuses, but don’t tell HER), it is all for naught, right?
Clinton has cast herself as Bernie Sanders’ victim from the beginning, as if she is entitled to the nomination without earning it by being the better candidate! She has run a mediocre campaign, a boring campaign, while Bernie has steadily gained voter support in an exciting campaign! So HRC and her dirty tricksters have played the victim card, further weakening her as a viable candidate! Jeff Bezos with his State Dept. Contracts at stake, has abused his power as WaPo new owner by printing dozens of slanted “news” articles trashing Bernie, and that’s a disgrace to this once-great paper! The NYT is no better! Remember how they cheerled for months George Bush’s illicit w-ar on Iraq? The are both whores!
To this day I remember an article I read many years ago (maybe 40 or more) which was printed in Readers Digest. It was about a girl who grew up in a back-woods conservative town somewhere in America. She was remembering how painful it was to be a child when her parents were openly supporting Franklin D. Roosevelt. Everybody hated him. Everybody said horrible things about him, except her parents. She could not understand what was wrong with her parents, how they could be so wrong. Why they were unwilling to go along with the clamor of the town. The story ends with how joyful she was to wake up and find out that Roosevelt won the election. That her parents were not weird or stubborn but they were actually with the majority standing behind who they believed to be the best candidate and willing to take the town’s bullying over it. It made an impression–put my feet on the ground. I am proud to be Bernie or Bust because he is the right candidate.
The Times endorsed Clinton before a single primary vote had been cast. That’s all you need to know to evaluate its coverage of the Sanders campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?_r=0
Cancelled our NYT print subscription and our online. Convinced all my relatives to do the same.
Sanders now or Trump later.
That is what’s needed. They only understand revenue!
You know who is going to suffer under a Trump presidency? It isn’t going to be the smug, privileged folks that can afford a subscription to the New York Times. It will be the poor, minorities of all kinds, people on foodstamps, people who need healthcare, pregnant teenagers, people rounded up and thrown in jail for drug crimes by Attorney General Christie, etc., etc,, But hey, it’s better to see all THOSE people suffer than to accept that your guy didn’t win, right?
If that’s what it takes to shake people loose from the toxic status quo we suffer, I’m willing to suffer right there alongside them. Allowing another Clinton to occupy the People’s House will do nothing but enable more plunder of the people’s labors and prolong the pain they’re feeling.
If she ever really cared about the “poor, minorities of all kinds, people on foodstamps, people who need healthcare, pregnant teenagers, people rounded up and thrown in jail for drug crimes” her actions completely belie it. The repeated instances of her bad judgement have done nearly as much to harm those people as anything Trump could do.
She made as much for a few speeches to Goldman Sachs as many people make in their entire lifetimes, but she isn’t willing to fight for the policies that would alleviate the suffering her and her husband’s actions have caused. Only one candidate wants to return the reins of government to their rightful owner, We the People, and we both know it isn’t Hillary Clinton.
Consider that the choice of president, while only one of several influences on American policy can in some circumstances make the difference between war and peace and life and death for some people. It also can have a profound influence on national priories. The entertainment-oriented media however tend to shun examination of policy, in order to make it all about a battle of personalities, like a “professional wrestling” grudge match. The character and competence of candidates is in fact critical, but that gets lost in a contest of celebrity. Yet what is to be done about several decades of governance that few have been please with? As opportunities shrink for the average American we might want to look below the surface after so many bumper-sticker solutions that don’t seem to work. Once in office, what do “our representatives” actually do in our name? Who gains and who loses and why? That would be journalism rather than barking for a circus.
NYT, NYer, WashPost, CNN and so many others have championed Clinton over Bernie since day one. A Trump v Clinton finale is their dream grudge-match. Irresponsible journalism is the standard today.
Every story published in any medium offers a window, a statement on the credibility of that medium. Some people think Pinocchio is just a story about a puppet.
And just prior to the debate in NH, just before that first primary, the same Healy concern trolled that Sanders’ single payer proposals would raise taxes, and people in NH don’t like taxes. He of course ignored everything else including the fact that generally people, including those in NH, like having solid medical insurance they can use if need be.
Oh yes, I too read this article and really thought about pilling what little hair I have left clean out of my head. The MSM has been writing The Berns obituary on nail in the coffin at a time for over a month now. As his crowds grow ever larger and more enthusiastic and he keeps winning. Oh he won Kentucky too ..I mean the whole Clintin bandwagon blitzed the state for a week, Bill the xPres and newly anointed restorer of American jobs Czar once she wins ( yay…just like he did in Haiti with Billions to spend) beating the Kntucky bushes too. Let’s face it Hillary as been scrambling as fast as she can to emulate the Bern’s progressive message and enthusiastic crowds but sorry we see through it as ingenious at best plagaiaristic at worst. She has lost her juice and to say Sanders is hurting her giving Trump his attack point is ludicrous…she has given herself plenty of soft targets around her belly politic.
I live in CA where a hopeless Brnis just got over 20,000 people in two rallies with thousands more ready to our out when he announce more talking dates…where is Hillary and her crowds? Where is her messaging that store th hearts and souls of our futur 45 and under potential voters? Sorry Madam Secreatry you have had your run and you are so clearly an anachronism you might as well begin your autobiography and settle into retirement with Bill…you have lots of talks to the big corps to enrich yourself with your buddy Kissy.
Bon Voyage…into your sunset years you go….the Bern is going to win in an amazing finish we the people will demand!
Who owns the biggest stake in the New York Times?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-becomes-top-owner-of-new-york-times/
And he has a fair sized investment in the Clintons:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/new-york-times-top-shareholder-is-a-clinton-foundation-donor/
Thank you for commenting on this so-called article in the New York Times. I live in NYC and have subscribed for years to the Times, and frequently posted comments online at the paper’s website. Over the past year, I’ve watched, first with surprise and incredulity, and then with increasing disgust The Times’ uniformly biased reporting in support of HIllary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination.
In response to the piece cited here, I commented online and last night, decided to exercise my right to vote for honest journalism by canceling my subscription to The Times. When asked why I was cancelling, I told the agent who took my phone call exactly why. I got the feeling it wasn’t the first such call she’d taken today.
I hear that perhaps the best source for unbiased reporting on the Democratic primary and the Presidential race is the UK-based publication, The Guardian, and plan to give it a try. How sad that journalism and journalists with once renowned publications are now not even a shadow of their former selves, captives of the same oligarchic greed that drives politics.
You said it all so perfectly. I’ve never taken the N.Y. Times, but I wish I could call them and cancel my fake subscription so I could tell them why!!!!!!
$hillary and the DNC is hurting $hillary! NOT BERNIE! Too much voter suppression, voter purging and out and out ‘ erasing ‘ Bernie’s supporters votes! CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER!!
hahaha! NYT tries to tell CA to vote so as not to ‘harm’ Shillary.
NY thinks the west coast is stupid and should be told how to vote, but the secret is we’re smarter… local headlines here say nearly a million new voters registered since January! oh, and unlike NY, we still have Monday to register.
we know who the real harm is being done to.
(but I have to pass a literacy/math test to post a comment here! haha)
And the overall (lack of) quality in the journalism at the New York Times is one of the reasons why it has ceased to be a national “newspaper of record.” In fact, I now pretty much expect biased reporting masquerading as journalism, and editorials that sound as though they were dictated by some government official and/or other important “expert.”
And I read with skepticism anything it reports as “fact,” and edit what it says accordingly. Ever since those “weapons of mass destruction,” I’ve ceased to believe that any serious editing occurs on the Times news floor. I haven’t seen a piece in years that actually looks like the job the media is supposed to be doing, i.e. Speaking Truth to Power. It’s a shame it used to be a paper worth reading and respecting.
Dear Advertisers – my eyes will never, ever again even glance at the NY Times. Don’t waste your money!!
I am so discusted with every media outlet we now have in America. I use to be able to watch MSNBC for hours of every day, now that they have gone along with all the right wing media outlets, I NEVER watch it. I am soooo sick of hearing about Donald Trump, seeing Donald Trump every minute and nothing but a 30 second video of Sanders’ speeches, etc. I don’t listen to any new outlet on TV.
What is this with having to do a darn math problem? Is that really necessary? I agree. Bernie or Bust, but If and/or when Bernie doesn’t win, how does one then switch to Hilary after saying such rotten things about her. This is the only thing that scares me. We just can’t have ANYONE not going out to vote Democratic if Clinton wins. I’m afraid that is exactly what will happen.