The New York Times depicts Rep. Jerrold Nadler as opposing the “pro-Israel community.” (photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
In a news article about Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.–N.Y.) endorsing the Iran nuclear deal, the New York Times‘ Alexander Burns (8/21/15) wrote of
the challenge facing Jewish Democrats in Congress, many of whom feel torn between their progressive inclinations and support for Mr. Obama, and their deep relationships with a pro-Israel community intensely opposed to the deal.
While the “pro-Israel community” is not further defined—it’s a broad category, given that 70 percent of Americans describe themselves as having a favorable view of Israel (Gallup, 2/8–11/15)—the implication is that the Jewish constituents of these congressmembers are overwhelmingly opposed to the Iran deal. But such a generalization about Jewish American opinion is contradicted by polls.
One survey, by the LA Jewish Journal (7/23/15), found 49 percent of US Jews favoring the agreement, with 31 percent opposed. Another poll, conducted for J Street (7/28/15), a progressive pro-Israel organization that supports the deal, found a similar margin, with 60 percent of Jewish Americans pro and 40 percent con.
Even a poll conducted for the Israel Project (7/21–26/15), a group that opposes the agreement, found only 5 percentage points more Jewish Americans opposing than supporting the deal: 45 vs. 40 percent. (The poll was able to produce a larger margin of opposition, 58 percent vs. 30 percent, by prompting respondents with criticisms of the agreement—a technique known as “push-polling.”)
It’s clear from the available polling that at least a large fraction of American Jews—who are overwhelmingly supporters of Israel—support the agreement with Iran. To define such people out of the “pro-Israel community” does a disservice to them—and to readers who are trying to get an accurate sense of the shape of US politics.
ACTION:
Please ask New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to address this article’s misleading claim that the “pro-Israel community” is “intensely opposed to the [Iran] deal.”
CONTACT:
New York Times
Public Editor Margaret Sullivan
email: public@nytimes.com
Twitter: @Sulliview
You can leave a copy of your message to the New York Times here.
Remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Dear Ms. Margaret Sullivan
In a news article about Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) endorsing the Iran nuclear deal, the New York Times‘ Alexander Burns implies that the pro-Israel community intensely opposed to the deal. Many surveys find the opposite to be true.
Please address this article’s misleading claim that the “pro-Israel community” is “intensely opposed to the Iran deal.
Irene Heitsch
Austin TX
Dear Public Editor,
I agree with FAIR that it is wrong to speak of a pro-Israel community being against the Iran deal without acknowledging the existence of a possibly larger pro-Israel community that is for the deal.
This is matter of nuance. because the story is about pressure on members of Congress to reject the deal, and in this respect it is the existence of a strong pro-Israel community that is relevant to that story.
But the phrasing can easily give the impression that “a pro-Israel community” refers to just about the whole pro-Israel community, and FAIR has shown that that is a very wrong impression, because an even larger pro-Israel group appears to be for the deal.
On matters of such consequence, with dire consequences at stake such as war involving nuclear weapons, it is important for the New York Times to avoid giving wrong impressions, even when what it writes may be literally truthful. The existence of the other pro-Israel group should have been mentioned
Yours truly,
Randal Marlin
28 Third Avenue,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1S 2J6
Tel. 1-613-234-2233
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
FAIR points out the Time’s assumption that the “pro-Israel community” opposes the Iran Nuclear Deal. I am a Jewish American, fierce in that identity, and strongly pro Israel. AND I am a supporter of President Obama’s and John Kerry’s hard-fought Iran Nuclear Deal. It is not a perfect solution – far from it – but it is the best that can be achieved now, and far better for Israel than war with Iran which is the otherwise inevitable alternative.
I am not, by the way, an Obama supporter (though I did vote for him) He is a miserable president environmentally, and in terms of wildlife conservation he is an atrocity, as a consequence of which the Democratic Party will not have my vote in 2016.
Best regards,
Mark Lender
Mark Seth Lender
Producer.Essayist.Photographer
Distributed by: Public Radio International
Skype: saltmarshdiary (by appointment)
http://www.MarkSethLender.com
Twitter: @marksethlender
Dear Ms. Sullivan,
While I was encouraged to read in today’s Times of Rep. Nadler’s support for the Iran nuclear deal, I think Alexander Burns’s reference to “the challenge facing Jewish Democrats in Congress, many of whom feel torn between their progressive inclinations and support for Mr. Obama, and their deep relationships with a pro-Israel community intensely opposed to the deal” is somewhat misleading, in that it seems to suggest that being pro-Israel and pro-deal are mutually exclusive.
In fact, a number of self-described pro-Israel Jewish organizations, including J-Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, Americans for Peace Now, and Tikkun, support the deal, and 340 American rabbis sent a letter to Congress Monday supporting the deal. While AIPAC may have a loud voice, I think Mr. Burns would better have referred to “a pro-Israel community divided over the deal.”
Sincerely,
Richard Khanlian
Santa Fe, NM
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
I am disappointed that an article in the Times today by Alexander Burns characterized the pro-Israel community in this country as “intensely opposed” to the Iran nuclear deal. In fact, as is well documented, both Jews, who overwhelmingly support the State of Israel, and non-Jews, the vast majority of whom also support Israel, are about equally divided in their support of, or opposition to, the deal. As you well know, a group of highly-respected former leaders of various Jewish organizations in this country voiced their support for the deal in a full-page ad in the Times just yesterday. Furthermore, numerous members of the Israeli military and security establishment have themselves announced support for the deal. Neither the Jewish nor the pro-Israel communities in this country are “intensely opposed” to the deat — to the contrary, they are just as divided on the issue as are other Americans.
Sincerely,
Peter Hanauer
95 Forest Lane
Berkeley, CA 94708
510-527-5227
August 21, 2015
Margaret Sullivan
New York Times Public Editor
Dear Ms. Sullivan,
It is becoming nearly impossible to use articles from your newspaper as a reference source when your paper continues to attempt to deceive readers with heavily biased and / or misleading articles. In Alexander Burns’ August 21, 2015, article titled, “Jerrold Nadler, New York Congressman, Endorses Iran Nuclear Deal,” the author seems to outright lie about what the “pro-Israel community” thinks about this deal. I am determined to not stand by and watch large newspapers like your own beat the drums for another unnecessary war in the Middle East.
I’ve seen the results of many opinion polls which have asked American Jews about their opinions on this deal, and from what I’ve read, most actually do support this deal – contrary to Mr. Burns’ printed words. Perhaps Mr. Burns is confusing the pro-Netanyahu crowd as being the only pro-Israel people in America, and this is blatantly false. Mr. Burns seems to further try to paint Congressman Nadler as some sort of maverick who doesn’t love Israel as much as the other congressmen who seem willing to bend themselves over backwards to attract campaign money from AIPAC. From my perspective, those congressmen who oppose the deal are doing all they can to stir up another war. Is this really going to help Israel? Can they be pro-Israel and pro-war at the same time? If they vote against the nuclear deal in order to please AIPAC, are they really being pro-Israel, or just behaving like money grabbing scumbags with little concern for the average Israeli citizen?
I’m about to tell my students to forget using quotes from your paper as we continue to find inaccurate summarizations of world events and opinions by writers who seem to be on the AIPAC payroll.
Christopher Meyer
Santa Cruz, California
Dear Ms. Sullivan
New York Times’ Alexander Burns implies that the pro-Israel community intensely opposes the Iran deal, which is just not true. This claim should be addressed and shown not to be true.
ML Jackson
NYC
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
In a news article about Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) endorsing the Iran nuclear deal, the New York Times‘ Alexander Burns’ (8/21/15) reference to “the challenge facing Jewish Democrats in Congress, many of whom feel torn between their progressive inclinations and support for Mr. Obama, and their deep relationships with a pro-Israel community intensely opposed to the deal” is misleading, because it seems to suggest that being pro-Israel and pro-deal are mutually exclusive, despite the conclusions drawn from analysis of opinion polling. .
It’s clear from the available polling that at least a large fraction of American Jews–who are overwhelmingly supporters of Israel–support the agreement with Iran. To define such people out of the “pro-Israel community” does a disservice to them–and to readers who are trying to get an accurate sense of the shape of US politics.
-Sena
Ms Sullivan,
Could you please look at the misleading claim in a NYT article by Alexander Burns on Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler in which Burns refers to “a pro-Israel community intensely opposed to the (Iran nuclear) deal”? In light of the fact that a number of polls of Jewish Americans on this subject consistently show a solid segment of this demographic – ranging from 60 per cent in a J Street poll and almost half in an LA Jewish Journal poll to 40 per cent in an Israel Project poll (all in the last weeks of July) – actually were in favor of the Iran agreement, what is the basis for this article’s suggestion that the ‘pro-Israel community is “intensely opposed to the deal? I have just listened to an interview with your columnist Roger Cohen laying out with remarkable grasp and clarity why the Iran agreement needed to be accepted, and the foreign affairs consequences for the US if it were not. He of course was voicing his opinion not the policy of the New York Times. But even if Mr Burns was voicing a preference of the newspaper he should not be doing it under cover of blatant falsehood in your news columns. I am sorry to see what I guess is still a great newspaper slipping into this tabloid-style deception. It is unworthy of NYT’s professional standards, and if Mr Cohen is to be believed – as I was convinced he should be – it is also unworthy of the cause that presumably in this case is under attack.
Please do not try to pretend that Mr Burns was thinking of some more narrowly-defined ‘pro-Israel community’ than Jewish Americans. That would be nonsensical on the face of it, and an even worse distortion of journalistic ethics than the slipshod assumption I have taken it to represent.
Thank you, Anthony Hewett
Public Editor Margaret Sullivan:
With various sources and polls indicating a majority of the Jewish community favoring the Iran nuclear deal, please clarify why the New York Times casually categorizes that very same community as being “intensely opposed to the deal.”
As the Times is most certainly privy to the same information available to me and the article in question (hopefully) the product of some careful consideration by Alexander Burns, its author, please also indicate the motivation of Burns and the New York Times in putting forth such a dubious contention.
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
Norm Gibb
I am a proud Jew who believes pro peace and dealing with
Iran may well contribute to world peace!! May God bless us.
Please clarify and document your claim that the “pro-Israel community is intensely opposed to the Iran deal”. That is not the impression I have from the polls taken. Prove your point by some hard facts!! Thank you.
How can you truthfully say that the “pro-Israel community” is intensely opposed to the nuclear agreement with Iran?
It may be true that some organizations supporting Israel have come out against the agreement, but you have no way of determining how many ‘pro-Israel’ people in the U.S. oppose the agreement.
For example, although I am not Jewish, I belong to a large Jewish organization that vigorously supports the agreement.
Please get your facts straight before you publish!
Most of our allies around the world including those in the middle east are in favor of the treaty. Last week a few Israel generals also came out in favor of the treaty. Seems like the member of our Congress who have been bought and paid for by the Jewish lobby are the ones who are hoping to vote for another war.
To: New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan
Dear Ms. Sullivan,
The NYT’s characterization of Jewish American “pro-Israel” sentiment regarding the Iran nuclear deal is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. Your reporters read the same polls as I do, and I see no such thing. Even Israeli military officials are praising it. And what about J-Street? Does it reject the deal? The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe that the NYT is slanting this coverage to satisfy Israel’s and our war hawks, who by the way have provided no credible alternative policy and just want to bomb Iran. The Times should not be shilling for this sorry collection of chicken hawks. Please apologize to American Jews for misrepresenting their opinions.
At breakfast I read the article by Mr. Burns about Rep. Nadler endorsing the Iran Nuclear Deal and was taken aback by the passing comment that Nadler’s position was at variance with “the pro-Israel community. I was taken aback because I had just read that the polls indicated something else. Perhaps Mr. Burns equates the position of the pro-Israel lobby with the pro-Israel community. They don’t seem to be of the same opinion. The reason for that would make the subject of an interesting article
One nation in the Middle East has requested and received 45 vetoes for international criminal activity since 1972. What country is that? The country that cannot abide by international law is Israel. Israel sits on 1,000 nuclear bombs and screams Iran might get one, and the world should go to war against Iran to prevent a nation near Israel to acquire such a weapon. Israel is the only pariah state in the Middle East: it is belligerent and engages in armed aggression against all its neighbors.
Dear Public Editor Margaret Sullivan
In a news article about Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) endorsing the Iran nuclear deal, the New York Times‘ Alexander Burns (8/21/15) wrote of “the challenge facing Jewish Democrats in Congress, many of whom feel torn between their progressive inclinations and support for Mr. Obama, and their deep relationships with a pro-Israel community intensely opposed to the deal.”
While the “pro-Israel community” is not further defined — it’s a broad category, given that 70 percent of Americans describe themselves as having a favorable view of Israel (Gallup, 2/8-11/15) — the implication is that the Jewish constituents of these congress members are overwhelmingly opposed to the Iran deal. But such a generalization about Jewish American opinion is contradicted by polls.
One survey, by the LA Jewish Journal (7/23/15), found 49 percent of US Jews favoring the agreement, with 31 percent opposed. Another poll, conducted for J Street (7/28/15), a progressive pro-Israel organization that supports the deal, found a similar margin, with 60 percent of Jewish Americans pro and 40 percent con.
Even a poll conducted for the Israel Project (7/21/-26/15), a group that opposes the agreement, found only 5 percentage points more Jewish Americans opposing than supporting the deal: 45 vs. 40 percent. (The poll was able to produce a larger margin of opposition, 58 percent vs. 30 percent, by prompting respondents with criticisms of the agreement–a technique known as “push-polling.”)
It’s clear from the available polling that at least a large fraction of American Jews — who are overwhelmingly supporters of Israel — support the agreement with Iran. To define such people out of the “pro-Israel community” does a disservice to them–and to readers who are trying to get an accurate sense of the shape of US politics.
So, Margeret, will you please address this article’s misleading claim that the “pro-Israel community” is “intensely opposed to the [Iran] deal.”?
Thank you,
Jim and Virginia Wagner
4897 East Walnut Street
Westerville, Ohio 43081
Please address the Times‘ misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
It is incorrect and biased to claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. The numbers show that Sanders is a very viable competitor and should be given proper credit.
It is so important that you maintain journalistic integrity when writing articles — especially in this time of lowering of news-source standards.
The New York TImes shouldn’t be cheer-leading for the candidate they like the best; it should be about reporting the truth! And Bernie Sanders IS a viable rival.
Telling blatantly biased information as if it were fact will loose your readers’ trust and support of NYT.
I hope that you correct this article.
So,it’s all over then? No need to waste time or money on the Democratic primary? So much better to just let the NYT and Senator Leahy declare a candidate. No surprise voters feel disenfranchised.
No, Hillary Clinton is not the unrivaled Democratic choice for president. Just because this Wall Street, corporate democrat is the choice of the NYT does not make it so. Please stop printing misleading, incorrect headlines. Bernie Sanders has many very strong supporters and will gain many more. I am one of them!
Dear Margaret—
I respectfully suggest that the NYT is making a very misleading claim when it describes Hillary Clinton as an “unrivaled leader” in an article dated Oct 23 by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel.
I strongly support one of her remarkably strong rivals and indicating that she has none is simply false.
I’m not sure what agenda NYT has when it allows that statement to stand, but it is not good, accurate, nor unbiased reporting—the kind of coverage of politics that readers should be able to expect and depend on.
We expect candidates to make claims that may favorably distort their standing, but the NYT must hold itself to higher standards. It should not distort any candidate’s record or position. It must do its utmost to make Its reporting as accurate, honest, and as unbiased as possible.
I hope this does not become a pattern that devalues the good name of the NYT.
Sincerely,
Marjorie Forslin
Marquette, MI 49855
In “Bush Cuts Costs, Carson Eclipses Trump in Iowa and G.O.P. Frets” by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel on Oct. 23, 2015, the second paragraph starts: “With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest …”
Really? Real Clear Politics has Clinton ahead by an average of seven points in Iowa with the caucuses still three months away and Sanders AHEAD by an average of 2.4 points with that primary a week later than the Iowa caucuses.
The stories misleading conclusion is piled on the alleged Clinton victory in the Democratic debate even though actual voters completely disagreed with pundits and Times’ reporters.
Could you tell the Times reporters and editors that they are not reporting but propagandizing?
This has gone on for the entirety of the campaign and it doesn’t get more excusable with time. A big lie continues to be a lie.
Thank you.
How many more people have been present at Bernie Sanders rally’s than Hillary Clinton? 2 times, 3 times, 5 times or 10 times as many.
Here is the letter I wrote to the times editor at suggested. Please anyone feel free to grab as much as you like:
Dear Ms Sullivan,
If the Times wants a future with young people, other than as footnotes in term papers, it should declare a policy of NOT saying the selection of Hillary Clinton is a done deal, as Healy and Gabriel’s piece claimed on 10/23:
“With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday,..”
Since the Times wants Hilary to win, it should be honest and say so on the editorial pages. Otherwise it’s a transparent attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy -much as Cheney played the Times to get the Iraq invasion in 2003!
I remember when the Times apologized for allowing Judith Miller’s transparent and successful warmongering. Now the Times is blatantly promoting the Hillary model of war mongering.
The Times AND the DNC are tone deaf to the meaning of two-way social media, which are exposing this kind of thing 24/7. Both are sealing their own fate with such perfidy. We see you and talk about you. Only a few old Grey Ladies with hearing or isolation problems won’t get it, soon.
The Times should show more respect for the truth. If Yogi Berra were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave. It ain’t over until it’s over.
Evan Ravitz
It is wrong for any paper that is in the NEWS business to glibly dismiss the actual events that are unfolding in the Democratic race…which is to say is a real race that is far from determined.
To M. Sullivan
I so strongly disagree with the article of 10/23/15by P. Haley and T. Gabriel claiming H. Clinton as the unrivaled leader in the democratic contest. It is misleading to say this and I think unfair given the record and polls. I would appreciate a correction to be made and a greater effort to be fair in future.
Thank You
C. Jewell
Here is the letter I wrote to the Times Public Editor as suggested. Please anyone feel free to crib as much as you like:
Dear Ms Sullivan,
If the Times wants a future with young people, other than as footnotes in term papers, it should declare a policy of NOT saying the selection of Hillary Clinton is a done deal, as Healy and Gabriel’s piece claimed on 10/23:
“With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday,..”
Since the Times wants Hilary to win, it should be honest and say so on the editorial pages. Otherwise it’s a transparent attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy -much as Cheney played the Times to get the Iraq invasion in 2003!
I remember when the Times apologized for allowing Judith Miller’s transparent and successful warmongering. Now the Times is blatantly promoting the Hillary model of war mongering.
The Times AND the DNC are tone deaf to the meaning of two-way social media, which are exposing this kind of thing 24/7. Both are sealing their own fate with such perfidy. We see you and talk about you. Only a few old Grey Ladies with hearing or isolation problems won’t get it, soon.
The Times should show more respect for the truth. If Yogi Berra were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave. It ain’t over until it’s over.
Evan Ravitz
Premature Coronation
Ms. Sullivan:
Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel frame a discussion of contention amongst Republican presidential candidates here — http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/politics/jeb-bush-cuts-costs-ben-carson-eclipses-donald-trump-in-iowa-and-gop-frets.html with a remarkable and unjustified opening — “With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest, the unruly Republican presidential field suddenly seemed to lack a center of political gravity on Friday, leaving party strategists and voters to fear a long nomination fight that could end with a damaged standard-bearer facing a more unified left.”
Given we are many months from the first primaries and Bernie Sanders continues to poll quite well both in New Hampshire and Iowa, and is doing remarkably well in fundraising, why the premature coronation of Sen. Clinton? Does seem to this eye that it is an attempt to craft a fait accompli. This is most unworthy of the Times and needs review.
Regards,
Robert Spencer
c’mon .. be an actual journalistic rag … Bernie is FART more likely (sure as hell hope so!) to win …
I am dismayed that the NYT reports that Hillary Clinton is unchallenged even before the first primary is held. Bernie Sanders is strong competition for Hillary in spite of the myopia of the Times. What ever happened to objective, unbiased reporting? Shame on you!
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
My name is Vaughan Galustian, and I was once an aspiring print journalist. In the Spring of 2013 I entered the Mayborn School of Journalism an innocent victim of every grossly romanticized interpretation of this crucial profession.
I once believed that it was the responsibility of the journalist to struggle for the public good, and that in the pursuit of this principle the truth would outweigh any personal gain regardless of the consequences. The truth does not favor either side of the coin.
I am not accusing the paper of bias, I don’t believe any sensible journalist can afford impartiality given our dire straits.
I am, instead, accusing you of crushing what is likely the final flickering flame of hope that remains for the people of this country. This is in reference to the article, “Bush Cuts Costs, Carson Eclipses Trump in Iowa and G.O.P. Frets” by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel.
For once in what could very well be the entire history of this country we could elect a leader who sincerely and unequivocally represents the masses of the people. A true democracy where the voice of the millions of the despondent and abject far surpass the enticing lure of the few elite. Yet every major media outlet I encounter prints only the most disparaging and apathetic image of his candidacy,
My concern is directed at the first clause of the second paragraph: “With Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest,…” The concern should be apparent. The race has hardly begun, and Hillary has yet tremendous ground to tread before we crown her the victor.
These blatant endorsements should trouble anyone with a modicum of journalistic sense, for this same message is being repeated by nearly every major source. I am pleading to whatever ideal you may retain for the public good, please, the least you could do is recognize the possibility that he could win — That is all.
Afford him the same chance and let the people decide on the merits of each candidate. Or are we clamoring for a battle in a war which we have long lost?
Thank you,
Vaughan Galustian
Dear Margaret Sullivan,
It has been drawn to my attention that the New York Times is making a misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. This is simply NOT true and reflects very badly on the paper’s credibility. Please end this unfair attempt to minimize the people’s support for Senator Bernie Sanders! It is beneath the NYT to make false statements of this sort!
Sincerely,
Stacey McCulloch
Crestone, CO
In an October 23 article, the Times points to Hillary Clinton’s “emerging as the unrivaled leader” of Democrats as a foil for relative chaos on the GOP presidential nomination. Though GOP was the article’s focus, the false narrative “emerging” about Clinton’s domination is as unwarranted as a Fox talking point from Roger Ailes’ office. This is willful blindness to Sander’s rise. Assuming the good faith of your reporters, they seem to be writing in anticipation of a Clinton nomination instead of considering current poll dynamics. The authors might have instead pointed to the relative calm of a still-contested race to distinguish the Democratic process from Republican flailing.
Please let the Democrats have their election.
Yours,
Worth Swearingen
Says who? Has the NYT heard of Bernie Sanders. Look him up.
Margaret Sullivan: I have to wonder when the Times will start reporting the truth instead of trying to mislead the public into thinking that Hillary Clinton is the front runner when Bernie Sanders is. This is so deceptive and sickening. The good new is that the people are waking up and your credibility is shrinking. Please address the Times‘ misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Margaret Sullivan
Public Editor
New York Times
Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel (10/23/15) have identified the winner of the Democratic presidential primary long before the first vote has been cast. The statement that Hillary Clinton is “emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest” is without merit. Not a single vote has been cast and some polls indicate that Clinton trails Bernie Sanders. The Times ‘reporters’ also said that the Republican nominee was facing “a more unified left” yet the Democrats are hardly unified, and Clinton is certainly not a leftist.
Many who look to the Times for accurate reporting are understandably wondering if the Times is in the business of reporting news or making it. It’s an open question; please address it.
Dear Margaret Sullivan. Please address the Times‘ misleading, nonsensical article by by Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel (10/23/15) claiming that “Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.” This is an OPINION piece that is designed to help Hillary Clinton, and should be labeled as such. If the Times is going to openly endorse Clinton, be straight about it. Don’t try and pass this baloney off as NEWS.
Dave
Ms. Sullivan,
I feel that Patrick Healy and Trip Gabriel’s article on 10/23/15 was a bit misleading saying “…Hillary Rodham Clinton emerging as the unrivaled leader in the Democratic contest…”
Please address this misleading claim that Hillary Clinton has no rival in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Sincerely,
H. Mathew Flowers
Austin, TX