How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders

[Miles Archer]

How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315

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."

[ebayfool]

1. More ...

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.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. How sausages are made

An unpleasant look into the factories of the corporate media.

Good for Taibbi for drawing attention to this all-too-common practice of distortion.

Thanks for posting, Miles Archer!

[2banon]

3. Kickin' & a Recken'

[G_j]

4. K&R

[snowy owl]

5. Bernie's site still unaware of the change...looks fraudulent now

Sometimes I wish there were a real contact number for the campaign. Bernie's site linked the article and now when you access the current NYT article, it has changed. Looks like Bernie posted a fraudulent version.

[snowy owl]

6. anybody know where we can view original?

I'd like to save it and send it around.