NYT examines its own navel re: its own coverage of Bernie Sanders

[merrily]

Declares it immaculate. Takes swipe at Sanders' supporters for finding fault with NYT coverage.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/times-senior-editor-carolyn-ryan-on-sanders-coverage/?rref=opinion&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs

Meanwhile, the likes of Salon has called out NYT coverage of Sanders. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251428155

[Enthusiast]

1. If the NYT Bernie coverage had been fair we wouldn't be complaining!

Pretty simple.

[merrily]

5. Yep.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Laugh. I like this part...

We​ ​respect the passion of Sanders ​supporters. But I ​think ​they may be overlooking much of the coverage that we have provided​.

In an election with some 20 candidates, Bernie Sanders, by my back-of-the-envelope estimate, has received more attention from The New York Times than all but ​​a few ​contenders: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and possibly Jeb Bush.

We're passionate, but somehow we just miss seeing (sorry, we 'overlook') much of the coverage they actually have provided.

And then, they provide wall to wall coverage of Clinton and Trump, minor coverage of Jeb, and then, oh yeah, the rest of the 20 or so candidates, with a bit more to Sanders than Jindal or Gilmore. And of the coverage of Sanders provided, they give the 'gee, look, he's drawing big crowds like Trump!' while at the same time using a variety of dismissive words. And we're supposed to cheer because he got more coverage than Lawrence Lessig?

[merrily]

4. As you might guess, I share your view. It's bullshit. And, they act as though the only

thing about a Presidential campaign that could possibly be newsworthy is standing in the polls. What about how Sanders comes out of nowhere, and rises in the polls without accepting large donations or running ads? What about the fact that neither he nor any of his campaign surrogates campaign negatively? What about the fact that, when the times has written about Sanders, it's been snark and condescension and dismissal? What about the fact that the nature of the coverage of other candidates has not been that way? Does every article about either Sanders or Hillary really HAVE to describe Hillary as the sure winner of the primary and/or Sanders as the sure loser? Where is it written that news stories have to make predictions.


Yes, Hillary was the dominant candidate. Did the NYT ever explain why, though? She's been running since at least 1992, has been being touted since 2012 by every pundit and politician as the inevitable candidate, and had no declared opposition until a few months ago


Either the NYT is wearing a huge set of blinders or it's being disingenuous, or both;

[Disabled15]

3. Give me a break!

"But one of the​ strategies of ​Sanders supporters is to ​relentless​ly​ agitat​e ​for more ​​favorable​ coverage​ ​from The Times and other outlets."

What!!? Yes, all Bernie supporters are trained to relentlessly agitate for more favorable coverage. Wasn't that in the Bernie 101 video we all watched? That was a low blow from a so-called member of the press.
ANY coverage that is about him alone would be nice! All of the articles they claimed to have written are always comparing Bernie to someone else. The title might have his name in it, but it's often just another article about Hillary.
And, comparing his coverage to the millions running on the repub side is just silly! He has higher numbers than any of them, yet he's treated like his numbers are 1% like those on the right.

Ridiculous! Thanks for sharing. Taking slow deep breaths now...

[merrily]

6. Right?

[mak3cats]

7. I have much more respect for Margaret Sullivan...

...I wondered where she went after she left the Buffalo News. I miss her here!