Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumNo longer pretending to be objective, NYT turns 3rd debate into “The Hillary Clinton Show”
The New York Times coverage of the 3rd Democratic debate revolves entirely around Hillary Clinton, ignoring Sanders
BEN NORTON
Corporate media outlets often pretend to be objective and neutral. People who work in the media nevertheless understand that this is an impossible task and that publications that present themselves as such do so only as a cynical marketing tactic to attract larger audiences (after all, Fox News slogan is Fair and Balanced).
Sometimes, however, media outlets throw the charade out the window altogether and expose whose side they are really on.
The New York Times did just this today, in its coverage of the third Democratic presidential debate, which was held last night in New Hampshire.
The first article on the front page of the Times this morning reads Clintons Focus In 3rd Debate Is G.O.P. Field. This is the headline for the newspapers coverage of the debate. It does not have a separate article about Bernie Sanders role in the debate, yet alone about fellow candidate Martin OMalley.
more
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/20/no_longer_pretending_to_be_objective_nyt_turns_3rd_debate_into_the_hillary_clinton_show/
PatrickforO
(14,577 posts)Only its owners. And the owners don't like Bernie.
Which is the most compelling reason of all to vote for Bernie.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)We could just scan the candidates instead of relying on the self interested media machine.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)PatrickforO
(14,577 posts)we ain't in it!
haikugal
(6,476 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Hope Sanders continues his suit against the DNC.
I wonder what skeletons will be "discovered" in THAT backyard.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I was going to post in in "Good Reads" and had the snips ready..but, held off.
Anyway...here's what I had snipped and knew I'd have to winnow it down a bit:
-----------
From the Salon Article:
----------
When Sanders dared to disagree with Clinton, the Times reduced his arguments to anger-inducing assaults and attacks. Clinton came under assault from Mr. Sanders, the establishment newspaper wrote, adding Mr. Sanders and Mr. OMalley both did their best to anger Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Clinton scarcely wanted to engage her rivals, except when sharply attacked.
OMalley was later written off as a mere irritant.
The Times loves Clinton so much it fails to even fact-check her, instead preferring to uncritically echo her talking points. The newspaper quotes Clinton snapping back at Sanders, stating I think its fair to say Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians. What the newspaper fails to mention is that this is wrong; 250,000 is the total number of Syrians who have died in the civil war that is approaching its fifth year. The Syrian regime is not responsible for all 250,000 deaths. But pointing out Clintons mistakes would detract from The Hillary Clinton Show, so it is clearly off the table.
(This was not the only Middle East-related error in the story. Even more egregious was the Times misquoting Sanders saying Tell Yemen, go to war against ISIS. In reality, Sanders stated Tell Saudi Arabia that, instead of going to war in Yemen, they, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, are going to have to go to war against ISIS. The former erroneous statement frankly makes no sense, and indicates a demonstrable ignorance about basic foreign affairs.)
------
When Sanders noted, in a crucial detail that has been ignored by the media, that the Clinton campaign may have also spied on his campaigns DNC voter data, and not just vice-versa, the Times glibly reduced the point to an unsubstantiated suggestion of impropriety by Mrs. Clintons campaign, refusing to even entertain the notion.
The Times concludes its article depicting Clinton in a shining light, writing Thank you, good night, and may the force be with you, she said, beaming. What the newspaper conveniently forgot to mention, while referencing what effectively amounted to Clintons public advertisement for Star Wars, was that the films director J.J. Abrams and his wife gave $1 million to Clintons super PAC. Blatant conflicts of interest are apparently not deemed newsworthy to the publication that purports to convey All the News Thats Fit to Print.
More at...............
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/20/no_longer_pretending_to_be_objective_nyt_turns_3rd_debate_into_the_hillary_clinton_show/
haikugal
(6,476 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)the sleeping giant has awoken.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's been blatantly undermining Bernie from the jump. Ditto most media.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)NYT needs to protect Wall Street.
Just forget NYT. It's a war propagandist rag anyway.