Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ReasonableToo

(505 posts)
Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:40 PM Mar 2016

I think DU kinda made Snopes again - re Bernie photo controversy (CORE sit-in)

I'm 99% sure that blurb listed in the recent Snopes article that covers the CORE sit-in photo is the one that I sent them...

"Please cover the third Bernie photo controversy. I'm glad that in the write up about the Selma photo, it's mentioned that Bernie does not claim to be at Selma so the claim came from supporters rather than the campaign. The photographer, Danny Lyon, who took the Chicago CORE sit-in photo at the center of the current Bernie controversy says that it is Bernie Sanders in the photo. When people come here to check on the most recent photo, they see two records labeled "false"."

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-civil-rights-photos/

Photographer Lyons: I took the photograph of Bernie Sanders speaking to his fellow CORE members at that sit-in. Bob McNamara, a close friend and CORE activist, is in the very corner next to me in the picture. Across the room from me is another campus photographer named Wexler, who taught me how to develop film. I photographed Bernie a second time after he got a haircut, as he appeared next to the noble laureate and chancellor Dr. George Beadle. Time Magazine is now claiming it is not Bernie in the picture but someone else. It is Bernie, and it is proof of his very early dedication to justice for African Americans. The CORE sit-in that Bernie helped lead was the first civil rights sit-in to take place in the North.

Yay for Snopes and thanks to Kim LaCapria!

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I think DU kinda made Snopes again - re Bernie photo controversy (CORE sit-in) (Original Post) ReasonableToo Mar 2016 OP
I'm beginning to believe that all Hillary surrogates share one thing with Hillary: Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #1
+1 daleanime Mar 2016 #2
Count me in the Deeply Disturbing category. nt nc4bo Mar 2016 #3
a combination: pathological liars leading the willfully ignorant [end] ReasonableToo Mar 2016 #4
+2 Champion Jack Mar 2016 #5
I vote for both Hydra Mar 2016 #6
Both. RiverLover Mar 2016 #7
+3 SixString Mar 2016 #8
That is so sad. I did not know how bad Hillary actually is until this campaign.... nt kgnu_fan Mar 2016 #10
You're welcome KLaCapria Mar 2016 #9
Welcome to DU! ReasonableToo Mar 2016 #11

Kip Humphrey

(4,753 posts)
1. I'm beginning to believe that all Hillary surrogates share one thing with Hillary:
Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:48 PM
Mar 2016

pathological lying. It seems all the Hillary camp can do is lie about everything! I can't decide if this is hillarious or deeply disturbing.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
6. I vote for both
Sat Mar 5, 2016, 07:14 PM
Mar 2016

Their gleeful disassociation from anything remotely factual is so baldfaced that you can't help but laugh...until you realize they are dead serious. Then it's terrifying.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
7. Both.
Sat Mar 5, 2016, 07:14 PM
Mar 2016

Its as bizarre as this election, which is also hilarious & deeply disturbing.

Dark Comedy, in real time.

KLaCapria

(1 post)
9. You're welcome
Sun Mar 6, 2016, 04:41 PM
Mar 2016

I don't lurk here but I do vanity search, sue me

Yes, I used your example! To clarify, there was a massive influx of traffic to the Selma page on that day and I noticed in the wild people were using it to bolster the other photo debate. The inaccuracy got up my ass so I did the second page. People using one of our pages to advance an inaccuracy was bothering me.

Please always feel free to send us tips! It helps us hit misinformation quicker, and sometimes (fingers crossed) stop bad information from spreading! I regret not addressing it earlier but the NV caucus page turned out to be really taxing and it sort of eclipsed this fact check! Irrespective of who anyone supports, as a content manager myself I can't imagine allowing misinformation to sit under my byline like that has at WaPo. Editorial/op-ed is not really an excuse, if the data doesn't back you up. But I really hate having to contradict trusted outlets, and I've had to twice in the past week or so. Coverage of this election has been incredibly sloppy.

ReasonableToo

(505 posts)
11. Welcome to DU!
Sun Mar 6, 2016, 05:03 PM
Mar 2016

That was bugging me too. So glad you took it up. I didn't think it would amount to anything but I couldn't do nothing so I took a chance.

I agree that coverage has been sloppy. Some at DU watch coverage and report here on what's going on so that the rest of us don't have to. We have a "late breaking news" thread that I follow.

I don't usually watch any network or cable news at all. I get my info from this site and Pacifica radio. I made the mistake the night before of tuning into MSNBC and was discussed by the talk about the photo and B's credibility. Just crazy coverage.

Anyway, thanks again.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I think DU kinda made Sno...