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

Nanjeanne

(4,877 posts)
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:22 PM Mar 2016

Matt Taibbi's piece: How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders

Really interesting article about the NY Times story on their piece, Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors which was CHANGED TO Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. He shows how they "corrected" the original version to take on a completely different slant from what was originally printed.

The New York Times ran a piece about Bernie Sanders Monday, a sort of left-handed compliment of a legislative profile. It was called "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors."

I took notice of the piece by Jessica Steinhauer because I wrote essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago. Mine, called "Four Amendments and a Funeral," was quite a bit longer. Sanders back then was anxious that people know how Congress worked, and also how it didn't work, so he invited me to tag along for weeks to follow the process of a series of amendments he tried (and mostly succeeded) to pass in the House.

I came to the same conclusions that Steinhauer did initially: that Sanders was uniquely skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.

"Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker… has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions."

Steinhauer the other day wrote very nearly the same thing. She described how Bernie managed to get a $1.5 billion youth jobs amendment tacked onto an immigration bill through "wheeling and dealing, shaming and cajoling."

The amendment, she wrote, was "classic Bernie Sanders," a man she described as having "spent a quarter-century in Congress working the side door, tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches, generally focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment."


SNIP

Given how tough the Times has been on Sanders this election season (in October, the paper even sank to writing an article about his failure to kiss enough babies), the Steinhauer piece was actually sort of flattering. Sanders himself linked to the article. Maybe the paper was coming around?

Not so fast! As noted first in this piece on Medium ("Proof That the New York Times Isn't Feeling the Bern&quot , the paper swiftly made a series of significant corrections online. A new version of the piece came out later the same day, and in my mind, the corrections changed the overall message of the article.

First, as noted in the Medium piece, they changed the headline. It went from:

Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors

to:

Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories

Then they yanked a quote from Bernie's longtime policy adviser Warren Gunnels that read, "It has been a very successful strategy."

They then added the following two paragraphs:

"But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.

"Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical."

This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign.
It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.


Read the whole fascinating article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315?page=2
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Matt Taibbi's piece: How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders (Original Post) Nanjeanne Mar 2016 OP
Astonishing greymouse Mar 2016 #1
EVERYONE WRITE TO THE PUBLIC EDITOR JackRiddler Mar 2016 #21
Marta & I have a digital subscription Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #22
Thank you Sir! passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #27
Glad noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #2
More ... ebayfool Mar 2016 #3
Media analysts have pointed out repeated that media has patently been trying to torpedo Bernie. merrily Mar 2016 #4
NY Times practices shoddy journalism farleftlib Mar 2016 #5
It's a rag. nt Snotcicles Mar 2016 #15
Let people see what the allegedly liberal NYT's does in the pursuit of truth. K&R Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #6
Clinton Times is probably one step below tabloid trash for journalistic integrity. n/t Skwmom Mar 2016 #7
The Corp-Media is clearly behind Clinton the Ruling Class candidate. It only makes sense that the rhett o rick Mar 2016 #8
Apparently, the NYT thinks that what Europe already has is "promising the moon," and then some. reformist2 Mar 2016 #9
shows who he's threatening. nashville_brook Mar 2016 #10
Even Rolling Stone feels threatened by some ideas, it seems olymoly Mar 2016 #32
Was it a removed post on DU? GP6971 Mar 2016 #33
No. Removed on Rolling Stone. nt olymoly Mar 2016 #34
They've joined the WP in circling the wagons around their establishment favorite. pa28 Mar 2016 #11
Another conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!1!1! cosmicone Mar 2016 #12
How is this a conspiracy? It's an article presenting factual information. The Nanjeanne Mar 2016 #13
Don't let it bother you Nan passiveporcupine Mar 2016 #29
What a disgusting POSt you just made... ljm2002 Mar 2016 #23
The usual condescending dismissal.... AlbertCat Mar 2016 #24
NYT -- the same people who gave us Judith Miller and the Iraq invasion nichomachus Mar 2016 #14
Crap! I've been using it for "pee pee" paper for my Maltese for years.... Peregrine Took Mar 2016 #16
Hey, if your carefully trained animal craps on their paper, why shouldn't theirs? n/t winter is coming Mar 2016 #18
CIA gets NYT to listen. Octafish Mar 2016 #17
ny times has been systematically anti-Bernie and pro-hillary; today's paper has an op ed amborin Mar 2016 #19
K&R Babel_17 Mar 2016 #20
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #25
It Seems The Fourth Estate Has FINALLY DIED! Thomas Jefferson Has Been Eaten ChiciB1 Mar 2016 #26
Thought I had heard it all. There is more in the Taibbi article than the title suggests. Land Shark Mar 2016 #28
The Times isn't alone in that assessment BainsBane Mar 2016 #30
K&R vintx Mar 2016 #31

greymouse

(872 posts)
1. Astonishing
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:25 PM
Mar 2016

and here I had thought the NYTimes had seen the light. No wonder the Public Editor is resigning.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
21. EVERYONE WRITE TO THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:31 PM
Mar 2016

Margaret Sullivan: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

E-mail: [email protected]

Here is what I wrote - feel free to plunder.

To: Margaret Sullivan
Public Editor, New York Times

Dear Ms. Sullivan:

Can you please investigate why this article by Jennifer Steinhauer, on Bernie Sanders as a legislator --
https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

-- was edited after publication online? And why it was altered in a fashion that added two paragraphs of non-factual, sheer editorial content (against Sanders) and with other changes and especially a new headline that all served to weaken or change the message of the original published version?

Revised version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=0

Matt Taibbi documents the changes well:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315

I agree with Taibbi that this post-publication editing is consistent with a pro-Clinton, anti-Sanders bias in the Times. (As evinced among other things in the only recently withdrawn use of super-delegates as though they are pledged delegates, and in many other instances of ignoring Sanders or playing him down. I'd add that the Times also participates in the general bias of covering Republicans and especially a certain reality TV show star before and far more than the Democrats.)

But for the moment I am sure I'm not the only one who would like to see you address this above matter with regard to Jennifer Steinhauer's article.

Thank you for your timely attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Omaha Steve

(99,060 posts)
22. Marta & I have a digital subscription
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:41 PM
Mar 2016

This will be the second time we have had to complain about their coverage of Bernie.

K&R!

OS

ebayfool

(3,411 posts)
3. More ...
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:28 PM
Mar 2016

more snips/

This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.

The second paragraph just reeks of a passage written by an editor. It's horrible English. Attention, New York Times: "A few stars here and there" is actually more than "the moon and a good part of the sun."

But the rest of these changes go to the heart of the meaning of the article, which is unusual and seemingly a nasty thing to do to the reporter, particularly since the changes read like talking points added by a Clinton aide. I would go ape if an editor pulled something like that on me in public.

If you're Sanders, you now know what's going to shake loose when reporting about you goes upstairs to the Times editors. It's not immoral or anything, just sort of crass. And odd, that they don't care that their readers now know, too.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
4. Media analysts have pointed out repeated that media has patently been trying to torpedo Bernie.
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:30 PM
Mar 2016

Even today, as I listen to Baby Super Tuesday coverage, it's a "stop Trump" movement on the Republican establishment side, but, on the Democratic side, it's "overwhelming support for Hillary." LOL, the DNC and establishment Democrats have been trying to stop Bernie since well before he announced he was running.

Media and the system are corrupt and undemocratic. This primary has certainly underscored that. And, yes, the NYT has been among the worst from the start. WAPO has revved up its attacks to literally one per hour. Democracy, my ass. Fourth Estate, my ass.

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
5. NY Times practices shoddy journalism
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:32 PM
Mar 2016

This is but another case in point of a long, long laundry list of failures on their part. They were de facto stenographers during BushCo's run-up to the invasion of Iraq and they haven't improved any since then.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
8. The Corp-Media is clearly behind Clinton the Ruling Class candidate. It only makes sense that the
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:33 PM
Mar 2016

big corporations and big money all stick together to get their candidate elected. All Democrats should reject the power of the Big Money and Corp control.

olymoly

(2 posts)
32. Even Rolling Stone feels threatened by some ideas, it seems
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:44 PM
Mar 2016

My REMOVED reply to the Rolling Stone article "How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders":
-----
-----

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Here it is 12 years later, and Bernie, even with the advantages of social media, and virtually the same Medicare for All, free preschool to college, anti-NAFTA, anti-Iraq War platform that Dennis Kucinich offered the country in 2003-2004 (when there was still a chance to just not start that war), is suffering the same treatment at the heavy hands of the New York Times.

From an interview with the Toledo City Paper in February 2004 ("Fighting for recognition, finding an audience&quot :

----

TCP: Why do you think you’ve been marginalized by mainstream media?

DK: I don’t ask The New York Times for permission to run for public office. The things I talk about relate to people’s practical aspirations — jobs, health care, education, retirement and peace. Big media monopolies generally aren’t interested in seeing these things as part of the debate. I’ve also been very vocal in advocating media reform to break up media monopolies so, naturally, I run the risk of being ignored or misrepresented.

----

It is enough to make one feel like losing hope, but it is really just further motivation to keep fighting harder for what is right.

-----
-----

Not sure what was objectionable in that, but all I can guess is that Rolling Stone/US Weekly might be sensitive to discussions of breaking up "big media monopolies".

Reminds me of Grandpa's Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rule."

The same can be said to be true of freedom of the press: "He who owns the press has the freedom."

pa28

(6,145 posts)
11. They've joined the WP in circling the wagons around their establishment favorite.
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:36 PM
Mar 2016
Here’s Washington Post’s Coverage of Bernie Sanders Since the Debate. Do You Spot an Agenda?

http://usuncut.com/politics/washington-post-bias-against-bernie-sanders/

We all know what they're up to and it's not subtle or clever.

Nanjeanne

(4,877 posts)
13. How is this a conspiracy? It's an article presenting factual information. The
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:47 PM
Mar 2016

Times article was changed. People are intelligent (some) enough to draw conclusions from that - but perhaps you simply don't know the definition of conspiracy. Just for your edification:

Simple Definition of conspiracy
: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal

Perhaps you can retire "conspiracy" with "under the bus" when someone doesn't like what someone else says.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
29. Don't let it bother you Nan
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:04 PM
Mar 2016

In another thread I mentioned the media was in the tank for Hillary and got an emotional reaction of "Are you kidding Me?"

Either these people are blind, or they have so contorted what they see, to make it more comfortable, that it doesn't even begin to resemble the truth any more.

Cognitive Dissonance. Yeah...there it is.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
23. What a disgusting POSt you just made...
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:46 PM
Mar 2016

...even more so because of the array of nasty gifs you included.

Taibbi references both the before and after versions of the headline and article. So if you have a refutation to make, you'll have to make it in that context.

But of course, you won't and indeed can't do so -- because truth can't be refuted.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
24. The usual condescending dismissal....
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:10 PM
Mar 2016

.... of a simple reporting of what happened.

Clinton fans have a huge problem with reality. (Sanders hates blacks and loves guns!) Almost as bad as Teabaggers. Certainly as negative and as anti-intellectual, anti-progress.

There seems to be nothing to say about Hillary but goo-goo praise for things that there is no proof of (Only she can win! She's the most qualified!) and just a bunch of "LOL" and snide dismissals of really damning stuff on Clinton. It's like Clinton supporters simply can't get past her surname.... and her sex. That seems to be all that matters.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
14. NYT -- the same people who gave us Judith Miller and the Iraq invasion
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:53 PM
Mar 2016

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

And now they're shoving Hillary down our throats. One more disaster in the making.

Peregrine Took

(7,408 posts)
16. Crap! I've been using it for "pee pee" paper for my Maltese for years....
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:59 PM
Mar 2016

have to find another broadsheet for him to relieve himself on!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
17. CIA gets NYT to listen.
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:10 PM
Mar 2016

Like the time when people were asking stupid stuff about torture just before a general election.

Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA

Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power


Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT

EXCERPT...

But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

SNIP...

Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:

"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.

CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia


If they weren't corrupt, they'd tell the truth, no matter what, about CIA torture or Bernie Sanders' accomplishments.

amborin

(16,631 posts)
19. ny times has been systematically anti-Bernie and pro-hillary; today's paper has an op ed
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:18 PM
Mar 2016

wherein the author mentions berniebros, etc....totally negative article....

the paper's layout dept chooses the worst photos of Bernie, trivializes his huge wins, champions hillary, etc....

one of hrc's huge donors, carlos slim, partly owns the paper; plus the paper represents the elite; it's an elite establishment

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
26. It Seems The Fourth Estate Has FINALLY DIED! Thomas Jefferson Has Been Eaten
Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:55 PM
Mar 2016

by John Adams. They both died on the same day July 4th, but Jefferson was younger. They had quite a relationship where Adams, who fought so hard for the Constitution became much more Conservative. For years they fought each other, but in the end made up right before their deaths.

But Jefferson always fought for THE FOURTH ESTATE! I weep with you Thomas Jefferson, this country it seems may soon go the way of Rome.

Thanks for posting this, I've seen both these newspapers turn to the right over the years and hardly recognize them anymore.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Matt Taibbi's piece: How ...