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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(130,865 posts)
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:24 AM Mar 2016

by Robert Reich 'The New York Times no longer reports all the news that's fit to print

but only the news fit for Hillary Clinton.

Appearing in yesterday’s morning edition of the New York Times was an article entitled “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors.” It was the first article I’ve read in the Times that praised Bernie. This one focused on legislative victories he's achieved for working people and the poor by quietly and persistently amending and changing bills.
I was going to share the article with you, but by yesterday afternoon it had been significantly and mysteriously altered to become less praiseworthy and more snide. The headline was changed to: “Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories.” Several complimentary quotes that had appeared in the morning edition were deleted (such as one from Senator John McCain, and another from Warren Gunnels, Bernie’s long-time policy adviser, calling his strategy “very successful.”) New paragraphs were added that criticized Bernie. (For example: “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 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 and a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.”)

The original article had called Bernie an “effective, albeit modest, legislator.” In the altered version, an additional clause was added: “ — enacting his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress.”

Many of us have long suspected the Times of anti-Bernie partisanship. This particular instance proves the point. I publicly call on the Times’s Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, to explain how an article praising Bernie Sanders the morning before several critical primaries could, just hours later, turn into an article criticizing him. Ms. Sullivan: Who at the Times made these changes, and why?'

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=ts

Fighting words from Robert Reich

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
by Robert Reich 'The New York Times no longer reports all the news that's fit to print (Original Post) elleng Mar 2016 OP
Matt Taibbi also wrote about the alteration of this article RufusTFirefly Mar 2016 #1
i bet one of two things happened: lakeguy Mar 2016 #2
The bait and switch. Sounds like Brock's been at work. Ford_Prefect Mar 2016 #3
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #4
Two words: Carlos Slim dorkzilla Mar 2016 #5
And, according to one calculation, the richest man who has ever lived nxylas Mar 2016 #6
Yep 840high Mar 2016 #28
Is he an American citizen? I thought he was Mexican. What is he doing interfering in our elections JDPriestly Mar 2016 #32
He is Mexican but he has a controlling interest in the NYT dorkzilla Mar 2016 #39
Wow, if that can happen after an article is printed Broward Mar 2016 #7
I haven't touched one anothergreenbus Mar 2016 #24
I use newspapers to clean my windows. Other than that???? I only read the very local, local ones. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #33
K&R dchill Mar 2016 #8
I'm really shocked greymouse Mar 2016 #9
I just unsubbed from the NYT. What else to do? earthshine Mar 2016 #10
I just cancelled my online subscription Harcourdt Fenton Mud Mar 2016 #11
thanks for that link! eom LittleGirl Mar 2016 #15
I frankly question how complimentary the article EVER was skepticscott Mar 2016 #12
K & R/NT davidthegnome Mar 2016 #13
Robert Reich was all but fired by President Clinton, and he's been an anti-Clintonite..... George II Mar 2016 #14
Not true at all; he's too intelligent to play such games. elleng Mar 2016 #16
Snap! babylonsister Mar 2016 #35
HEY, b'sis! elleng Mar 2016 #36
First post I ever recced without reading Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #17
Thanks elleng Mar 2016 #18
I still remember eferrari catching a newspaper in the middle of altering an article suffragette Mar 2016 #19
Kick and Recommend. nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #20
K&R SusanaMontana41 Mar 2016 #21
Long ago, the NYT had a great reputation. Long ago. merrily Mar 2016 #22
Same with the Washington Post. Iwillnevergiveup Mar 2016 #23
WAPO switched from Democratic to Republican ownership. Nothing else need be said. merrily Mar 2016 #38
I don't call them the New York Slimes for nothing! Peace Patriot Mar 2016 #25
Bookmarking Faux pas Mar 2016 #26
Call it what it is...Pravda. TM99 Mar 2016 #27
K & R RecoveringJournalist Mar 2016 #29
I would bet they got a call from one of Hillary's megadonors. Doctor_J Mar 2016 #30
K & R!!! Thespian2 Mar 2016 #31
Thanks, and rec'd! nt babylonsister Mar 2016 #34
Kick and R BeanMusical Mar 2016 #37

lakeguy

(1,640 posts)
2. i bet one of two things happened:
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:47 AM
Mar 2016

1-Hillary's campaign saw the article and asked them to tone it down

2-It was the plan to change the article all along. Once the goal for the number of times the article was shared on social media was hit, they changed the story

Now it looks like even the strongest Bernie supporters don't think he's that great. After all, who goes back and reads a story again to see if it has changed? I saw this posted on FB many times yesterday by BS supporters.

nxylas

(6,440 posts)
6. And, according to one calculation, the richest man who has ever lived
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:41 AM
Mar 2016

I would have to dig to find the article, but it was based on calculating how many of his fellow countrymen he could afford to buy. A slightly flawed methodology perhaps, since capitalism values the lives of people in the Anglosphere and Western Europe more highly than those in the rest of the world. But it doesn't change the essential fact that Carlos Slim is very rich indeed.

dorkzilla

(5,141 posts)
39. He is Mexican but he has a controlling interest in the NYT
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:57 AM
Mar 2016

And he's a friend of the Clinton's. A little pressure from your top shareholder to change a story to help a friend isn't exactly unheard of.

I mean hell, if you have enough money, things like borders and citizenship don't mean squat. Rules are just for us plebs.

Slim leant the Times money during the financial crisis so I guess he's calling in favors. More quid pro quo.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0KN2M820150114

Broward

(1,976 posts)
7. Wow, if that can happen after an article is printed
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:48 AM
Mar 2016

imagine what the editorial process must be before it's published. The NYT is just another corrupted institution.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
33. I use newspapers to clean my windows. Other than that???? I only read the very local, local ones.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:06 PM
Mar 2016

The little newspapers that talk about your local issues.

greymouse

(872 posts)
9. I'm really shocked
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:15 AM
Mar 2016

I used to think the Times was a reputable newspaper, but it's undeniably become a rag.

 

earthshine

(1,642 posts)
10. I just unsubbed from the NYT. What else to do?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:29 AM
Mar 2016

I fell for this one. Sent the link around. And they changed the content afterward.

The fix is in for Hillary.

Even if she is not personally corrupt (and she is), it swirls around her as a never-ending shit storm.

11. I just cancelled my online subscription
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:11 AM
Mar 2016

I've been subscribing for $15/month for at least 4 years, but I just can't continue supporting the New York Times after the biased coverage this election. Instead, I joined The Young Turks Network, www.tytnetwork.com/join

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
12. I frankly question how complimentary the article EVER was
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:38 PM
Mar 2016

towards Bernie.

I mean, seriously...this?

Mr. Sanders is not unlike Tea Party Republicans in his tactics, except his are a decaf version.

The article is full of shit like that. Even a lot of the ostensibly favorable statements are really backhanded smears.

George II

(67,782 posts)
14. Robert Reich was all but fired by President Clinton, and he's been an anti-Clintonite.....
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:46 PM
Mar 2016

....ever since.

Anything he says is tainted with his grudge.

elleng

(130,865 posts)
16. Not true at all; he's too intelligent to play such games.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:49 PM
Mar 2016

He's been quite even-handed, and actually supported HRC initially.

He wrote the book 'Locked in the Cabinet.' 'Here is Reich--determined to work for a more just society, laboring in a capital obsessed with exorcising the deficit and keeping Wall Street happy--learning that Washington is not only altogether different from the world of ordinary citizens but ultimately, and more importantly, exactly like it: a world in which Murphy's Law reigns alongside the powerful and the privileged, but where hope amazingly persists. There are triumphs here to fill a lifetime, and frustrations to fill two more. Never has this world been revealed with such richness of evidence, humor, and warmhearted candor.'

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/927158.Locked_in_the_Cabinet

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
19. I still remember eferrari catching a newspaper in the middle of altering an article
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:23 PM
Mar 2016

To cover an FBI gaffe.


K&R for shining a spotlight on what is being done.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
38. WAPO switched from Democratic to Republican ownership. Nothing else need be said.
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:53 AM
Mar 2016

One hit piece per hour on Sanders.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
27. Call it what it is...Pravda.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:48 PM
Mar 2016

It is just propaganda. We don't do real journalism anymore. It is infotainment for a consumer driven and ignorant culture who wouldn't normally notice and article change if it bit them in the ass. Frankly most wouldn't care either that it was changed.

WaPo and NYT's want Clinton to win. It is apparent to all to see. They really don't even give a shit any more if a few of us figure this out and try to call them on it.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
30. I would bet they got a call from one of Hillary's megadonors.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:19 PM
Mar 2016

Or maybe even Bill Clinton himself. The current ruling class in the US puts the Kremlin in its heyday to shame wrt their corruption.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»by Robert Reich 'The New ...