We can always count on you for that. But really, despite the headline, the article itself isn't that bad. Bernie's beginning to talk to people outside his core group of support, and that's going to come with challenges. It's almost like starting a whole new campaign. It's the right thing to do at this point.

one of those who posted in favor of smaller crowds anyway?

SO he makes the kind of small scale appearance candidates also do during primaries, and he's not electrifying a crowd of senior citizens.

Therefore he "faces empty seats," even though the article mentions he is also doing larger events too.

Fer Gawd sake.

I got it from this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/bannerite/status/660859766168621056

Maybe they're reading DU.

They use clickbait titles on social media, then use milder headlines on site. I wouldn't make up a headline like that, "harsher" etc. I copied it from that tweet and now see they did change the headline.

Pretty lousy that you're being accused of malfeasance. No one asked--they just jumped on you.

If they look at the damn link, they see, EXACTLY, what you wrote.

smh.

You use the abbreviation for "so much hate" when people get upset at a changed headline. The OP already pointed out the correction. But I am glad you have so much hate.

Living out loud!!!!

I don't know which the poster meant, but it's a good reason to not use acronyms.

Gawd knows where your interlocutor came up with his/her definition, but it's bullshit.

It's NEVER meant "So Much Hate" anywhere save the poster's mind.

Hillary because of the small events she hosted. Bernie supporters here mocked those events, and bragged about how Bernie was drawing much larger crowds.

So now, it's okay, because Bernie is doing it?

The hypocrisy here is amazing.

rooms filled with converts and allies. I will not be so taken off guard.

into groups based on their defining characteristic, and then declaring to understand the nature of their monolithic concerns.

Carry on. You obviously have an insight into the older person's mind that we Bernie folk could never quite match.

Actual headline...
[link:|

When the truth doesn't match your own perceptions, make shit up. Love it.

And I was in before it so nyaaaaa

I saw the other one too

When I click on the URL and open a new tab in my browser, the original headline is at the top of my tab.

and he's not as much of a draw in at least some of these smaller venues. As it is, it looks to me like a few of those audience members can only be described as "wannabe seniors." Others, per the article, weren't there to hear the candidate.

About a third of the seats were empty when Bernie Sanders gave a lunchtime talk to seniors in Manchester, N.H.

By Annie Linskey GLOBE STAFF OCTOBER 31, 2015

Overflow crowd lines up to hear Bernie Sanders in N.H.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/31/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/74969452/

Web version was headlined different.

change.

accused her of things she didn't do.

I think leaving it be--along with the shitty accusations--is a cautionary tale about accusing before making sure there isn't a reasonable explanation for something...like "That's what the Boston Globe wrote--and the LINK proves it."

Changing a misleading headline is a common courtesy on DU. I don't expect you to understand.

It's an object lesson. And it is NOT "common courtesy"--particularly when the ORIGINAL headline is salient to a good portion of the thread.

if that became a new paradigm, rather than simply noting the change (and do note--the original LINK has the ORIGINAL HEADLINE in it), the thread-tending here would be insane. Anyone who gets off their best intentions and READS the entire thread (and, again, takes note of the original LINK to the story) can see, clearly, what the deal is, here.

Changing the headline at this point only muddies the content of the subthreads. I also don't think that those who accused Janey of bad behavior should get away with accusing her like that, unfairly, without anyone noticing.

If we really want to be a bit kinder and gentler we'd all do well to ask first, accuse second. But hey, I wouldn't expect YOU to understand, given your last snarky and shitty comment directed at me.

smh.

The Globe had the good sense to change it. Using "but it's still in the link text" may be the lamest justification ever. Of course if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be screaming for the Bernie supporter to change it.

crystal ball to predict that the headline would be changed, in essence.

Using "but it's still in the link text" tells EVERYONE reading this thread that the headline said one thing when it was first posted, and now it says another--as helpful DUers have been quick to point out AND provide screen shots. It's not "lame" at all--it is part and parcel of the history of the document.

But the bottom line is this--cut and paste that original headline into google, and the article with the new headline pops right up. They DID write it that way in the first place. Accusing the OP, or me, or anyone here, of 'something-something-bad-about-Bernie' doesn't change that simple fact.

Not sure why you're so anxious to "cover for" the Boston Globe. That IS what you're doing, even if you don't realize it in your zeal to be some kind of 'smooth over the rough patches' advocate for Senator Sanders.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd crab just like others are doing, but I wouldn't advocate changing what the paper said in the first place. It's an excellent jumping-off point for discussions about media framing. Clinton has gotten this treatment a LOT down the years.

Not everything in this world is Happy-Happy-Glad-Glad. Least of all coverage of political campaigns. You'd do well to get used to that, because we're still at the starting gate, big picture.

Again, if the paper no longer supports the original headline of their own piece, why should anyone else? Unless... it's an opportunity to leave an inaccurate-shitbomb-title unchallenged for effect You can dance until you pass out, it doesn't change what's going on here. Adieu.

mean... it's uncool no matter who does it or everyone does it so it's cool?

Why should Hillary supporters exhibit any more consistency or character than she does. Carry on...

karma is too much for so many. Carry on.

And they are reliable voters.

I think at least 12 of the people in this shot are media:

How is this moving beyond his core constituency?

like many younger voters do. It's possible all they've heard from him is stuff from the TV or Newspaper. Going to small venues like this, no matter the size of the audience, will only increase his exposure to their demographic and help him win over people.

They probably don't LIVE on it as much, but a fair percentage are online, or have a smart phone. This is a generation that still prefers to talk to actual people. Their "discussion board" takes place around a table, looking people in the eye. I think they're probably fairly well informed, especially in NH. The candidates get a few minutes most times they're in the state on the nightly news. It's not substantive or in-depth, but there is exposure that aggregates over time.

You would be surprised how many seniors have the Internet at home and have smart phones. Many of them are retired and have more time for online activities.

You would be surprised how many on DU are seniors. There are a ton of Boomers here, because there are still more Boomers than anyone else. At least that was true before the invasion of newbies and people who only post during the primaries. I have a feeling it is still true.

And I think it's safe to say their main information source is so-called "traditional" media.

My grandmother is 93 & her & her sister's use it regularly. As do my mother & all of her friends whom are also senior citizens.

Seniors absolutely use the internet. For Facebook, and email, and maybe 1-3 pages for news. Most likely whatever "news" page their browser or ISP defaults to.

Otherwise, their primary source of "news" will be cable tv and/or talk radio.

IOW, nothing that covers Bernie Sanders to any extent. (A study done about a month ago showed his coverage in the MSM to be around as much as for Mitt Romney potentially running for 2016.)

And as age increases the gap widens further.

That's not a bad turnout for an afternoon at a senior activity center. I don't know about this particular place, but that looks like about the same number of people who lived in the assisted living section of where I worked

Kinda silly to claim that a small group of seniors, at a senior center, means Sanders is "facing a harsher campaign."

"Oh look there's not a huge crowd of people... at a lunchtime stop at a senior center!"

Like... no shit.

actually covering the horserace angle of it all--they are the major paper closest to the NH contests, and has a lot of reporters in the field. Their reporting isn't cobbled together wire service crap, it's boutique.

Since Sanders hasn't stopped at senior centers regularly to this point, his reception as he enters this new phase is salient. I can guarantee you if that were Joe Biden at that venue, the joint would be PACKED. No one schmoozed the seniors better than Joe and they remember. He was a MASTER at it.

exactly why she posted it.

just imo

Though God knows why

💩

They wrote the headline-it is embedded in their link.

Keep trying Janey, if it makes you feel better. Try watching Bernie's new ad, that'll hurt your brain

And it's true, that poll-tested ad is slick. He's getting the hang of a national campaign.

The QA was very informative and the people seem to be more than receptive to his message.

Not surprising, Hillary is cementing her place as the front runner and democratic party nominee.

He showed up for lunch at a senior center, and they ignored him. I can't imagine how that would happen.

appreciate being yelled at for 45 minutes.

Just guessing.

There's that ...

His campaign has a formula to incite large crowds with crowd manipulation psychological techniques into emotional frenzy's. It doesn't just work that well with small groups or debates etc...

Who doesn't want to be in a small crowd with someone like that? I think it would be great to have a Q&A session with him ... I'm sure they probably did. Good for him for giving seniors a chance to hear his message ...... I doubt a lot of these people are physically able to attend the large rallies.

even though the website has changed the title........... nice work

eom

meh.

...because it isn't news that an un-advertised event had little turnout.

He's just lucky it wasn't Bingo night ...... they'd probably have run him out the back door. Many residents are just 'over' what is going on outside their home. They may have very serious health issues they're dealing with, have lost all family members and friends, have given up everything in their lives they've worked for and that mattered to them .... and do not care about much anymore - including politics.

You haven't worked in one, I take it?

It is a senior center. Many communities have them. Seniors go there for meals, activities, education, socializing, etc. The people who go there are active. Often, these centers have activities for the entire community.

Stop treating senior citizens like cretins. It is insulting and shows your ignorance.

Your nastiness shows your ignorance. !!

Most, if not all, still live in their own homes and drive and do all the things many of us do. The fact that they were there meant they were initially interested.

Here's the picture that accompanied the article - not the type of seniors you're describing.

these.

Why not senior citizens, too?

Here's the real one:

"Sanders campaign shifting to broaden primary appeal"

That's just a teeny weeny bit different, isn't it?


If I wanted to read Faux News type shit I would go to their site.

No complaints from you any more. You've just squandered the last of your credibility.