RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Taibbi writes: "If you're Sanders, you now know what's going to shake loose when reporting about you goes upstairs to the Times editors."

The 'New York Times' published a piece Monday originally headlined 'Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors.' (photo: Victor J. Blue/The NY/Redux)
The 'New York Times' published a piece Monday originally headlined 'Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors.' (photo: Victor J. Blue/The NY/Redux)


How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

16 March 16

 

Online, we see both faces of the Gray Lady

he 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 Jennifer Steinhauer because I wrote essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago. Mine, called "Four Amendments and a Funeral," was a Rolling Stone feature. 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 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."

Now, Steinhauer's piece wasn't all flattering. This is, after all, the New York Times, which has practically been an official mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign this election season.

Though we both operated on the same set of facts — i.e., that Sanders had an extensive history of building coalitions to pass amendments — Steinhauer implied that Sanders often acted as a kind of lefty obstructionist, using Republicans to thwart more centrist initiatives. "Mr. Sanders is not unlike Tea Party Republicans in his tactics, except his are a decaf version," she wrote.

She added, "While he is unlikely to turn against his party on important votes, he is most proud of the things he has tried, unsuccessfully, to block." She listed the Iraq War, the Wall Street bailout and the Patriot Act as some of those things.

Still, Steinhauer was reluctant to describe Sanders as a mere spoilsport, not someone who "gets things done," as is often said of Hillary Clinton.

"But in spite of persistent carping that Mr. Sanders is nothing but a quixotic crusader," Steinhauer wrote, "he has often been an effective, albeit modest, legislator."

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"), 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.

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."

There were other changes, as noted in the Medium piece. The salutary line about Sanders being an "effective, albeit modest legislator" – a key passage that in the original article directly contradicted the Clinton-camp contention that Sanders can't "get things done" – is now followed by a sort of disclaimer:

"He has enacted his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress."

Right. He's effective, except for the part where he hasn't had any significant achievements in 25 years.

Worse, the line about "tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches" has now, absurdly, been rewritten to read:

"…tacking on amendments to larger bills to succeed at the margins."

I reached out to Steinhauer, whom the paper put in a very uncomfortable position by making such extensive edits in public. She essentially replied that in the Internet age, this sort of stuff is routine, and articles evolve.

"The good part about digital publishing is that we get more things to our readers more quickly but it also means that complete editing sometimes comes ends at the end of the day," she said. "Two or more versions are now pretty common with all our work, as you probably know."

Well, not so much, actually. Online content does change a bit from time to time, but I've never been in a situation where an editor has asked me to alter the overall meaning of a piece, which is what happened in this case.

Steinhauer's article as originally published told a story about how effective Sanders has been at getting amendments passed. It's more or less the same story I wrote back in 2005, an essentially positive take that even Sanders liked enough to publicize.

The new version, though, reads very differently. In it, Sanders is described as a "small-ball" legislator whose career has been spent doing unimportant little things. The focus of the piece is now less on the what of his legislative victories than on the where: the margins.

This is a substantively different message than the first piece, and certainly not flattering. You won't find the Sanders camp linking to it.

The Times has taken a lot of heat from Sanders fans for not covering him enough and for its generally sarcastic approach to his run. And at times, the paper's editors have seemed to tone things down in response to criticism. They even removed a description of him as a "Grumpy Old Socialist" in the headline to this piece.

If you're a Sanders fan, that's great, but it's not like the paper is under any obligation to be nice. It's not. It's a private company and it can take any editorial line it wants.

But this kind of stuff is pathetic. Jennifer Steinhauer is right, we do make tweaks all the time. But usually changes are minor and factual in nature. You fix a wrong number or a misspelled name, maybe, or at most you'll chip away at a passage to make it flow a little better.

A change to a quote by John McCain in this piece is an example of something that just feels like a routine fix. The original passage had McCain talking about an amendment he worked on with Bernie to expand care for veterans.

It was a long quote and in the new version, the Times yanked the last sentence, which read, "It was the first real reform of the V.A. ever." But it still has McCain calling Bernie an "honest liberal" and describing him as "very effective."

There was not much of a substantive change there. They just made a long quote shorter, which is something we do in this business all the time (ideally before publication, of course, but I guess these days after is becoming the norm, too).

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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+170 # Jayceecool 2016-03-16 09:14
So sad that the NYTimes has become a mouthpiece for the 1%...
 
 
+135 # NAVYVET 2016-03-16 09:59
You make the NYT's NeoCon(federate ) drag-down seem recent. I lived in & around NYC for a few years, read the Times, and it always seemed hostile to the general needs of the citizenry. Its viewpoint and that of the Wall St Journal (or as I called it, Urinal, long before Rupert Murdoch's takeover), were very similar. Journalists, even editors, are often liberal. But owners...hardly ever. Environmental sanity and empathy for those who need help inspire bills, after all, that might strip the rich owners and their Boards of a few bucks, or a yacht or two.

Despite the hostility of "news" media owners, Bernie took away a good number of delegates last night. He's still in the race.
 
 
+78 # heiko12 2016-03-16 10:30
Quoting NAVYVET:
You make the NYT's NeoCon(federate) drag-down seem recent. I lived in & around NYC for a few years, read the Times, and it always seemed hostile to the general needs of the citizenry. Its viewpoint and that of the Wall St Journal (or as I called it, Urinal, long before Rupert Murdoch's takeover), were very similar. Journalists, even editors, are often liberal. But owners...hardly ever. Environmental sanity and empathy for those who need help inspire bills, after all, that might strip the rich owners and their Boards of a few bucks, or a yacht or two.

Despite the hostility of "news" media owners, Bernie took away a good number of delegates last night. He's still in the race.



When I lived in the NYC area, I found myself reading the NY Times often - it was just around everywhere. Over time I noticed a number of subtle themes in much of their reporting. Basically they could be summed up in the words "greed is good", and ANYTHING to do with business and finance is so obviously good to be beyond criticism.

Let's hope we don't get yet another president "of the 1%".
 
 
-28 # Crumbling Empire 2016-03-16 18:29
Quoting NAVYVET:

Despite the hostility of "news" media owners, Bernie took away a good number of delegates last night. He's still in the race.

NAVYVET: The current delegate count is Clinton 1606 and Sanders 851.

Sanders is NOT still in the race, sadly.
 
 
+41 # dagnew 2016-03-16 21:21
I think you're including the 'super' delegates (as does most of the mainstream media). That's a mistake since they can change their allegiance at the convention - and will if Bernie crushes Clinton in California.
 
 
+60 # goodsensecynic 2016-03-16 10:05
"...has become..."?

As Phil Ochs put on an album cover over 50 years ago:

"All the news that fits ... we print."
 
 
+34 # fresh aire 2016-03-16 10:52
So TRUE; but not surprising because the NYT did endorsed HRC. Nevertheless, i held "HOPE" the NYT wouldn't stoop so low. Rather unfortunate for the 'grand ol lady'.
 
 
+57 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-16 13:04
Quoting Jayceecool:
So sad that the NYTimes has become a mouthpiece for the 1%...




Become? During the Vietnam War when ca. 15, 000 protesters from all over NY came to protest the war (one of them being my totally apolitical stepmother from Long Island!) they reported it as being only ca. 2000 people. (The protesters filled over 12 square blocks!)

They have been lying for years.
 
 
+21 # Jeff Spurr 2016-03-16 20:48
That's nothing! When a 10,000 person peace march on a Saturday in March, 1968 (please note the date), was massacred by the police in downtown Chicago, neither the Tribune nor the Sun Times covered what happened, the Daily News just barely since one of its photojournalist s had been assaulted by a policeman. Its not even in the history books!
 
 
+38 # Billsy 2016-03-16 13:40
The once great NYT and WaPo are now mere propaganda tools for the 1% and military-indust rial complex. I can't help but note that while the Clintonisti love to say "She gets things done", one NEVER sees a detailed list of her accomplishments . They certainly don't mention her betrayal of Sen. Warren on Clinton's support of the credit card industry friendly bill that sticks it to middle class consumers. I have given support to Sanders three times so far to keep him in the race until the end. Should Clinton become our next POTUS we need a huge populist base to keep her feet to the fire.
 
 
0 # RLF 2016-03-17 04:36
The more liberal end of the 1% but agreed.
 
 
+11 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 05:53
Its been a rag since William Sapphire and promoting the middle East wars for Israel and its war partner multi-national corporations. Boycott the Anti-American NEW YORKL TIMES. it in no longer academic at all and has been 100% compromised. No one take any author from that shit rag seriously at all. They are corrupt to the bone since 9/11 and the outright LIES about WOMD and YELLOWCAKE. They should be in prison for murder just like the liar Goebbels was criminally indicted for his work.
 
 
+108 # Sunflower 2016-03-16 09:27
So sad that now we will have super-Hawk Hillary for Prez when we could have had an honest man, just trying to improve this country...
 
 
+41 # Ken Halt 2016-03-16 14:40
Sun: It is more likely now but it is NOT a done deal. Bernie is going to keep on campaigning and a lot of people are going to keep on supporting him. A nominee will be chosen at the convention, the primary season is not over until then.
 
 
+35 # Bourbaki 2016-03-16 09:33
The mountain just keeps getting higher.

Pathetic.
 
 
+2 # rural oregon progressive 2016-03-16 14:45
The mountain is not really "higher", but rather it has gotten a bit steeper :-)
 
 
# Guest 2016-03-16 09:35
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+93 # danireland46 2016-03-16 09:38
The New York Times, generally considered the benchmark of U.S. journalistic excellence, has basically 'sandbagged' Sanders in favor of HRC's campaign in this article by Matt Taibbi. He goes on to cite various ways the Times has slighted, or minimized Bernie. The part I want to quote was from an article appearing in the Times on Monday by Jennifer Steinhauer, whic reads:

"[Steinhauer] 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."

The point is, the Times may demean, or minimize Bernie but they can't deny the fact that Bernie is a progressive populist representing the interests of the common man; "focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment." Voters need to remember this, even though it looks like tough sledding from here on out.
 
 
+8 # sashapyle 2016-03-17 02:25
So whatever actually concerns us is just Bernie's personal itch according to the NYT...was the Iraq war Hillary's itch? Giving bailout $$ to the bankers who stole it was her itch too I guess...
 
 
+38 # mh1224jst 2016-03-16 09:51
Sadly, in the real world this isn't just about politics, it's about economics, and our future. Nearly everyone in this emotional atmosphere is still ignorant of the fact that we must take strong action against inequality very soon. It is actually Clinton, under the advice of her New York Times economic advisor, Paul Krugman, who plans merely to chip away, making side deals. As President, Bernie Sanders plans more aggressive action.

Our future is at stake, Four years from now, absent a broader awakening, we likely will see President Clinton, and her CEA chair Paul Krugman, awkwardly trying to explain why we had another huge crash. Just today, an enlightened billionaire, Peter G. Peterson, ran an ad on MSNBC warning about how interest on the national debt will become the biggest
item in the Federal deficit in five years. I made the same point in July of 2014 in my local paper, the Albany Times Union.

Krugman is oblivious to this, and generally to the consequences of inequality growth, a problem he has repeatedly said is just a "political" problem.
 
 
+42 # gd_radical 2016-03-16 10:56
Quoting mh1224jst:
Just today, an enlightened billionaire, Peter G. Peterson, ran an ad on MSNBC warning about how interest on the national debt will become the biggest
item in the Federal deficit in five years.


Peterson is not an enlightened billionaire who gives $#@! about inequality as he's just another egocentric greedy selfish rat bast@rd con man. NYT has been a mouthpiece for years now of the 1%, just as the Clintons are too. Political parties and corporate media are rotten to the core at this point and both mouthpieces deserve not one iota of our moral or financial support. Instead of our loyalty and money, we should heap scorn and ridicule, and of course, pour our energies into supporting sites such as RSN and true progressive candidates that will not bow down to moneyed interests.
 
 
+50 # SusanT136 2016-03-16 11:08
Yes gd_radical I agree - Peterson is NOT an "enlightened billionaire". He wants to END social security. How's that for enlightened?

"According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/peter-peterson-foundation-half-billion-social-security-cuts_n_1517805.html
 
 
+25 # mh1224jst 2016-03-16 13:18
Thank you, gd_radical, and SusanT136: I stand corrected. That puts Peterson in a class with Simpson & Bowles.

The key factor at work here is everybody's least favorite topic,economics . These guys are pulling an enormous trickle-down scam: They get the federal government to borrow money for them and ask us to finance their wealth.

We can't fix the problem with more Rubio/Trump/Cru z/Paul trickle-down policy. This wide-spread myth has been cultivated by the wealthy, and it's a scam that must be destroyed at its roots.

The fact remains that federal debt interest is an obscene problem that will break our backs, if we don't begin soon to tax the rich and corporations. So we need Sanders, not Clinton.
 
 
+13 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:05
The spending is intentional. They make huge amounts of money by putting us in debt. Look up the Zeitgeist movement that explains the dynamic. If the debt was gone the country would collapse. That is the way the buzzards have set it up. It is dependent on bad debt always being around, and inflation is a good thing in this dynamic: The Ponzi Scheme.

Notice no cuts are proposed in military spending even though we spend more than almost every country combined and there is no real war happening of justification anywhere. Notice $10 million is sent to Israel every day with huge increases promised by Hillary. This the money to send every American to college tuition free and make us an actually better more productive society. WHERE IS THE NY TIMES and these Billionaires on this issue? They never even enter the batter's box is where.
 
 
+1 # crispy 2016-03-22 19:32
correct fletch1165 3 billion/year is almost $10 million/day: INSANE!! AND the same or about is still going to a tyrant in Egypt who sends dozens in jail after a mock trial and tortures and...
Not sure it's enough to pay for all in college but sure would go along way if not plenty in FACT.
 
 
+11 # kgrad 2016-03-16 13:33
I contribute to RSN every month and am glad to support this site. It's where I go when I want to read news-worthy articles.
 
 
+22 # mentor 2016-03-16 11:49
Krugman, after all, has joined the Clintons in his pursuit of nouveau wealth. After all, he has his digs in Park Avenue and St Croix to maintain.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:07
Anyone that believes that mouthpiece should buy their beachfront Alaska property now.
 
 
+44 # Bruce Gruber 2016-03-16 10:08
The DNC establishment breathes a temporary sigh of relief. Yesterday Bernie's revolution fell victim to the inertia of status quo 'sensibility'. Blacks and older whites resist future-oriented "change" in favor of familiarity. Citizens United funds the drumbeat of consistency as the theme of 'working with' rather than reversing negative social trends. The income inequality process remains intact.
Young Americans and intellectual whites see abandonment of the FDR New Deal as a capitulation to 0.1% profit mongering. Civil Rights and post-Vietnam (and post-Depression ) achievers steadfastly defend remaining benefits of the "progress" achieved in earlier efforts. They don't engage in long-term efforts to CHANGE the economic, social and political "system".
Satisfied by conveying the remaining equity and trophies of legal achievement, they vote recognizable compromise over 'warfare' on principle. Voter suppression, privatization of Social Security, Post Office, and Medicare 'losses' will not hurt the current crowd of Hillary supporters.
They don't correlate current 'politics' with their grandchildren's futures. Nor do they equate Climate Change or lost jobs with future economic enslavement. Technology reduces human labor as a necessity. Global warming will change the habitability of Earth. A Hillary Presidency affords respite for those fearful of ISIS, Global Warming or 'job' availability. Denial, postponement or war offer constancy.
 
 
+53 # Bruce Gruber 2016-03-16 10:09
The remainder of Bernie's Campaign offers a better chance of success. An enlightened constituency from California to New York may open minds. Super delegates CAN change allegiance. The FBI may still influence Hillary. Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri and Illinois might turn out to have been Bernie's.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2016-03-17 04:47
Plenty of empty headed money in California pushing neocon drivel. We have seen as many crazy things from the right in California as just about anywhere. My hopes aren't that high for Cal.
 
 
0 # crispy 2016-03-22 19:35
YEP RLF I was in CA when they elected 3 republican governors starting w Reagan...
 
 
+6 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:08
Sheldon Adelson and DIEBOLD has been winning the election for Hillary. Nothing human.
 
 
+3 # joyster 2016-03-17 15:34
Superdelegates do change they votes, they did for President Obama! :-)
 
 
+12 # Cassandra2012 2016-03-16 13:12
'older whites'? This kind of generational divisiveness seems to forget 'older whites' like my 75 year old female self, actually heard FDR speak, and know what he stood for and see a new kind of FDR in Bernie!
I usually agree with you Gruber, but this kind of blanket condemnation of a very complex older generation, or older generations is not only untrue, but unworthy of you.
 
 
+19 # Ken Halt 2016-03-16 15:02
BG: Yes, let's not lose sight of the tautology that "It's not over until it's over." The nominating convention is still months away and a lot can happen between now and then. I'm not about to end my support for Bernie and settle for a tweedledum candidate. Change won't happen unless WTP make it happen. GO BERNIE!! WE NOT ME!!
Cassandra: I think you're over-reacting. BG is referencing a statistical truth that older white people (guys in particular) tend to support Repubs and conservative Dems. A self-proclaimed "Old White Guy For Bernie" I didn't take offense. Wearing my Bernie teeshirts and buttons, I meet approval and affirmation in all sorts of "unlikely" places. All us Bernie supporters are on the same team and need to unify and focus on the task ahead: getting Bernie into the oval office. WE NOT ME!!!
 
 
+18 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:15
I'm with you there. I'm not about to settle either. No doubt she is expecting us to. I hope all of Bernie's supporters stand strong.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:12
Statistically speaking, it is true. I don't understand it, but most people our age (I am 71 and female), are going for Hillary. If I understood it better, I might know how to counter it.
 
 
+7 # PeacefulGarden 2016-03-17 05:28
You can't. It is all Wall Street. Hillary is the Wall Street candidate. This whole thing is a big set up. Donald is the bad guy, Hillary is the loving woman.

You have to respect Wall Street marketeers, they have really branded this whole narrative.

Ya' know, "I can't believe its not butter"... that whole thing.

Hillary is margarine.
 
 
+3 # crispy 2016-03-22 19:42
at age 65 I am w yiou Ifeuille I cannot understand people our age voting for Hilary BUT propaganda works for poorly informed voters and those who don't remember Hilary's past actions and words.

Her statements today at AIPAC should be enough for us to abstain if she is the candidate (Sorry I have reached that point after years of voting for the lesser evil.)
lfeuille like "la feuille" in French?
 
 
+6 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:11
Ohio are the ones that send us Boehner ever year with no chance of it not being so. This corrupt gerrymandered bastion of corporate worship and all for the illegal wars is not a good litmus test for the nation. Like the elections are not rigged.
 
 
+1 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-16 10:19
PK sees inequality as a YUUGE threat to democracy, and has for decades. Between now & 2018, STOP Trump fascism at home & abroad (ex., Iran Treaty); play small ball (baseball strategy for actually WINNING, not just showboating)in Congress; begin fixing SCROTUM (yep!); lay ground work for REAL Movement, as demographics improve; prepare to OCCUPY DC.
 
 
+6 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-16 10:29
"Smaller ball"(baseball strategy considered brainier): As with Medicaid expansion, entice states to make college more affordable with 3-1 (?) matching federal dollars. Dramatically expand financial support to mid-middle class and sub-mid middle class students. Limit borrowing (at 1.5% interest). Pay down debt, including debt of current indebted graduates, for doing internships at low performing schools, urban & rural. Make CONNECTIONS. Nurture empathy, understanding. Eliminate debt for highly qualified would be teachers who work at underperforming schools. Subsidize debt reduction for high quality child & elder care, and for volunteering abroad. American Ambassadors.
 
 
0 # crispy 2016-03-22 19:46
OK OK Shades of gray but how do we do this w a republican congress or worse a republican congress + a Trump in the White House
 
 
+4 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-16 10:37
Smaller, smarter ball: Since even Trump has endorsed (use videos) public option Prescription Drugs (with bargaining power), create USA-Care & give Medicare access. FIND some common ground WHEREVER possible. Go to GREAT LENGTHS to reach out, patiently, tolerantly, empathetically, appreciatively. Practice, and practice, modesty, even humility (except when joking around, teasing). If Bernie can work with racist birther Jim Inhofe FOR THE COMMON GOOD, so can we.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:19
No to that. I am not giving up on what we really need. The longer we wait, the harder it will be. Smaller won't solve the problem. We have to hold out for the whole package or will end up with nothing. Partial solutions just leave us farther behind every year. I am not settling for Hillary's agenda. It is not adequate. This is really what you are advocating.
 
 
+30 # drew 2016-03-16 10:44
The NYT has proven to be so very flawed since 9/11, and they're the best mainstream paper we have!! Similarly, public radio & TV have also changed in the past few years, devoting much more airtime to Republicans who lie with impunity and go unchallenged, fact-checked or debunked. The massive failure of our mainstream media (particularly since 9/11) has reminded us of how critical the press is to our democracy. What is to become of us?!?!?
 
 
+9 # Ken Halt 2016-03-16 15:23
drew: "What is to become of us?!?!?" You've obviously looked behind the curtain and can see who is pulling the strings. There are alternate media outlets these days, and persons with critical thinking skills are able to weed through the dross and weave intelligent narrative, as I F Stone did in the '60s. Trouble comes when citizens don't inform themselves, a basic civic, responsibility, and vote instead for a pleasing facade, facile public persona, or patriotic slogan. The problem cannot be pinned entirely on the media, the US electorate bears the responsibility of due diligence. That so many have accepted the outright lies, petty concerns, and illogic of right wing politics is proof that much of the electorate is not paying attention.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:24
In some abstract way, you are right. But that doesn't help much. We really need a mainstream outlet that will present unbiased news. People will not go looking for better news sources when they don't know that what they are getting is garbage.
 
 
+3 # Ken Halt 2016-03-16 20:10
Ifeuille: I acknowledge your point (and gave an up) but the US gets the democracy it deserves. Note Ben Franklin's cautionary reply, the US is a republic IF WE CAN KEEP IT!
 
 
+4 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:15
This is not a republic. Its a Trotskyite corporate collective.

And Franklin also said correctly "those that trade civil rights for national security deserve neither."
 
 
+2 # Ken Halt 2016-03-17 17:01
fletch: I agree, we haven't kept it, never meant to suggest we did.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:21
It's been pretty flawed since Viet Nam, and probably longer, but I wasn't paying attention until Viet Nam.
 
 
+1 # crispy 2016-03-22 19:48
yeas drew I feel it started during the 1st Golf war for NPR that became National Pentagon Radio and NEVER went back to progressive
 
 
+42 # DrD 2016-03-16 10:45
This kind of post-publicatio n correction is straight out of '1984'. I suppose next they will claim he wasn't ever in the Senate! Thanks Matt for keeping track.

The NYT, like almost every aspect of the establishment, is scared of the real changes that Bernie is promoting to address income inequality and fairness. Every 'Big' (Big banks, oil, pharma, war machine, and media) is against him. We The People will need to work even harder to help this revolution.

There are many good states ahead for Bernie.
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2016-03-16 15:03
Exactly! I've seen this happen time and time again. After I post links to articles that state a point I wish to make, the article is changed to either delete that point, or even reverse it.

At the very least, the article should state at the bottom what changes were made and why.

Errors should be corrected, but this is a different beast. This is 1984. There's an excellent series available online titled, "Evidence of Revisionism" that shows how news stories are altered in later iterations, deleting inconvenient truths and adding new "facts" that did not exist at the time.
 
 
+31 # reguspatoff 2016-03-16 10:55
George Orwell was prescient. In 1984, Winston was tasked with rewriting history to suit the powers that be. And now that is happening, and this is a rare chance to glimpse the process.
 
 
+10 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-16 11:12
Interest that NYT "revises" so blatantly. Reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 EngSoc: English Socialism.
 
 
+12 # Earthling22 2016-03-16 11:39
Thanks again for plain-talk Matt Taibbi. Bernie has yet a ways to go.
What is driving me nuts is people who say if Bernie loses they will 1)not vote, 2)vote for Jill Stein, 3) Vote Trump.
On number 3 - I don't think we are in the same universe. Enough said
Otherwise - three new justices & 30 years of more crony insanity (Citizen's United as starters), race wars and sexism, more violence & guns, law & order fascism domestically & fading respect for US internationally . And real terrorist will take advantage of chaos and disunity. And did I mention Economic collapse, with the rich forever in the boats of the Titanic.
Green party people need to start at state and local levels and then vote for 'a Jill Stein' - when she's has a chance and can get anything done. Like they did in Europe. Start at local level!
Meanwhile - Trump.
I'm going to keep supporting for Sanders for a while, but if he doesn't make it (for whatever reasons, corrupt crony Press or 1% and Wall Street influence, etc.) then it's time to vote Hillary-- and carry on with political People' s revolution!
Unless some of us think with something other than our LIMBIC, greedy threat-sensing, 'true believer' brains, and refuse to learn the lessons of history (start with Nader) or care about future (climate change, population control and religion keeping women out of power) -- we as a species are headed for disaster. Nature has no mercy, only rules you follow or take consequences.
We can't wait 4 years.
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-03-16 15:10
I am among the many who will not compromise my values to the point of voting for HRC.

I was a volunteer for Bill Clinton in 1992. I knocked on doors, staffed phone banks, did voter registration and posted signs.

And I have felt some responsibility for the horrors his Administration rained on this country and the world ever since.

I will not do that again. In fact, I find HRC to be an even more reactionary, right-wing shill for Wall Street, the MIC, Israel, etc. than her husband.

I will not be complicit in the continued deaths of brown-skinned children, the further concentration of wealth by the 0.01% and the evisceration of what little remaining rights we still have that another Clinton Presidency will bring.
 
 
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-03-16 19:41
Earthling says that we "can't wait 4 years", but advises Greens to start at the local and state levels. That is quite a contradiction.
Maybe the wrong lesson has been learned. If everyone who wanted Nader had voted for him, he may have won.
I read last night that 3 of 10 Republican primary voters responded in exit polls that they would seriously consider voting for a third party candidate if given a choice between Trump and HRC in the general election. If former Sanders supporters think the same way, Stein could win.
There will be no "political People's revolution" if HRC has any influence.
 
 
+2 # sashapyle 2016-03-17 02:29
Stein does not have the name recognition to win anything this late in the game. Americans would vote for Santa Claus first, because they have heard of him.
 
 
+26 # mentor 2016-03-16 11:44
The publisher of the NYT is part of the ruling elite. Parties at the Hamptons, cozy relationships with the 1% -- these are the important things to the publisher, as in fact they are to the Clintons. Marching orders have been sent out to the opinion writers as well as to the reporters to be condescending and derisive toward any Democratic candidate who bucks the elite. They did the same thing prior to the idiotic Iraq invasion. heaped gallons of condescension on Howard Dean,who, back then, opposed the party pro-war line mouthed by the Times' Judith Miller. A deeply corrupt institution, the Times. I use RSN as a much-needs supplement.
 
 
+21 # mlefkoff 2016-03-16 11:47
Bruce Gruber is right about "status quo sensibility." Unfortunately, our minority and marginalized populations do not understand that when they vote for Hillary, they vote for all the things they are opposed to--inequality, bad trade agreements,coll ege debt, etc. We used to say "What's the Matter with Kansas?" I wonder today what's the matter with minority voters? They say they need a revolution, but they vote for the status quo.
 
 
-34 # Pops07 2016-03-16 11:53
Notice how Liberals love the Times as long as it bashes the GOP. Their minds are so screwed up.
 
 
+16 # Ken Halt 2016-03-16 15:34
pops: I am a proud Liberal and don't love the Times at all. As with most all MSM, it is a right wing, reactionary mouthpiece for the 1%. The meme of a liberal media is total nonsense and a convenient stalking horse for conservatives, that you believe it belies the acuity of your critical thinking skills. While media staff may be liberal, media owners have lots of $$$ and are dues paying members of the status quo. It is the owners who dictate what is published, and they know where their self interest lies.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:19
Fake liberals you mean that swear allegiance to foreign powers and multi-national corporations. Name a lib who supports them and I will prove it to you irrefutably. Oh wait you love the times and are that fake flaming Liberal aren't you? Please do tell us more about your adoration of the NY Times and its supporters.
 
 
-19 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-16 12:06
WHAT in God's name is wrong with NON-minority voters? They ridicule wise & experienced minority voters for not falling for UNDELIVERABLE pie in the sky. Minorities have been teased with that phony dish since the 1860s. AT RISK minorities vote for what they perceive to be the best firewall against fascism that threatens their very lives. No white privilege escape for them. They know "Godless Socialist," as yet UNVETTED, Bernie, admirable as he may be, would get DROWNED in "Religion & Free Enterprise are as American as apple pie." Minorities have no choice but to choose their "pie" very, very carefully.
 
 
+16 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:34
I don't know where you are from, but you have a rather distorted view of the rest of the nation. Lots of people give lip service to religion, but most don't care all that much one way or the other. And, people are waking up to the fact the "free enterprise" as practiced in this co country is rigged. What they don't know is what a phony HRC is.
 
 
+11 # SOF 2016-03-16 12:35
Trump is a wild card. So is Bernie. It's delicious to imagine the hand wringing freakout of those who planned to be in charge of this election. Maybe their press thought Trump was a convenient distraction from critical issues like TPP, War, etc... Or Bernie's truth re need for revolution against the whole corrupt system. Or explaining, yet again! how we can pay for his 'pie in the sky' ideas. Or Congress, State, local elections, or hackable voting machines. This chaos isn't even close to being over.
 
 
+5 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:28
I agree but the corporations will win if either of their horses, Hillary or trump win. Trump stands for everything they are. He would not exist without their corrupt practices. Hillary has been paid the most ever by them.

Bernie made big money through politics, first becoming a mayor, then senator. But his message and reforms are genuine. All people desire is a fair balance and that is what Sanders offers. A system that works for everyone and not just a small group of fat multi-national corporate elitists.
 
 
+6 # tr4302@gmail.com 2016-03-16 13:16
Wow! Even a large publication is part of the corporate democrat confederation! Who stands up for what is right? Not the Times for sure!
Disgusting!
 
 
+19 # angelfish 2016-03-16 13:51
Hillary CAN'T beat Trump. Bernie CAN. Case CLOSED!
 
 
+6 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:32
Bernie is all that stands in the way of their master plan. It will be many more boots on the ground in 5 Middle Eastern states and the American taxpayer and our great grandchildren will pay for it all.
 
 
+4 # davehaze 2016-03-16 14:17
Christ, Matt forgot to mention Trump this time. Congratulations . Now he has to expand upon this to discuss how the entire media ignores Sanders and pushes Clinton as inevitable. Then he must discuss Clinton and speculate on what kind of a president she would make make and it would be positive or detrimental to the country.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-03-16 15:19
Last night, serial liar Brian Williams on MS-DNC told us repeatedly that they would air EVERY speech by EVERY candidate. If two occurred at the same time, he promised that they would not cut from one, but rather they'd continue the live coverage for the entire speech, and then broadcast the recorded, and uninterrupted second speech.

They then did this, showing in their entirety, every single speech.... except the one by Sanders.

And of course, co-host Rachel Maddow said nary a word in protest.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:37
When I saw Rachel embedded in Iraq driving in a tank I knew it was over for all network TV.

They chose her to replace Olbermann because she is not heterosexual and they want to paint all libs as fringe instead of mainstream. Just like her sidekick guy with the glasses. Very nice and popular people. She tries her best within a system that censors and controls her every word, coordinated all in an effort to convince sheep MSNBC are the "fair and balanced" ones.
 
 
+7 # nice2bgreat 2016-03-16 14:32
.
I don't see the New York Times' "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders as the important aspect of this story.

The "story" is entirely about the lack of credibility the New York Times poises looming at every moment -- always there to do their unscrupulous little part.

There is nothing grand about the Gray Lady; all that is left is a decrepit facade, which one may hope against hope that an accurate, complete, and objective portrayal of just about anything will bless us all; but don't bet what you cannot afford to lose on it.

No, the "story" is the not sandbagging of Sanders; this is merely one example of 10 months of complicity by virtually all major media against Sanders, and well well well over 10+ years (50?) since abandoning due diligence, in favor of excuse-me journalism, by the Grayed Battle-Ax.

Sanders must view the charade as par for the course, as something that doesn't change a thing.
.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-03-16 15:20
"Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours"

http://www.fair.org/static/bernie-static.html
 
 
+10 # economagic 2016-03-16 15:47
And along with the rest of the East Coast Media they coronated Clinton the morning after her second dubious win.
 
 
+8 # PrimeRib 2016-03-16 14:42
The NYT is a staunch supporter of the coronation of Hillary as the next POTUS. They did however, recently run an insipid editorial asking Hillary to release transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street Banksters, et al. It is also worth noting that in the Sanders/Clinton debates the media moderators have been timid at best with follow-up questions to Hillary on the transcripts subject.

Hillary’s hardball strategy is to continue equivocating on release of these transcripts. Releasing the non-redacted transcripts now, will more than likely jeopardize her chances of getting the democratic nomination – given the likelihood that the contents will show her kowtowing to her wall street/big pharma base. The release will also confirm what Bernie Sanders says about her allegiance to these financial backers.

However, if Hillary is able to gain the democratic presidential nomination [without the transcripts release], the Republican nominee (Donald Trump??) will surely make this a major campaign issue thereby forcing their release. The content of these transcripts will be a serious detriment to her campaign. However, her survival chances may then be better given the two flawed presidential choices the voters will have to consider, November 2016.

Hopefully, progressive democratic and independent voters will start to “see the light” concerning Hillary’s questionable integrity and recognize what a refreshing change a Bernie Sanders presidency will bring to our nation.
 
 
+14 # Buddha 2016-03-16 15:24
Quoting Matt Taibbi:
This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign


It mostly likely WAS.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-03-16 15:48
A friend has referred to the Gray Lady as "Wall Street's other paper" for years.
 
 
+9 # Johnny 2016-03-16 16:27
NY Times is merely Netanyahoo's propaganda rag. Not a newspaper.
 
 
+1 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:41
The name should be changed to the AIPAC Gazette to reflect its actual worth to journalistic integrity.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-03-16 16:40
"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."

Well, I think it is immoral, not just crass.
 
 
+5 # PABLO DIABLO 2016-03-16 16:58
The TIMES has been a piece of shit for the times.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-03-16 17:38
What surprises me is that the NYT ever had a reputation as a liberal paper. I would hear that my whole life, but always thought their actions were quite illiberal. Hell, they helped get us into the Iraq War.

Very interesting to see the editorial changes -- fascinating article.
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-03-16 17:41
This is what it means to fight the Establishment. They have the power, the money, the media, the time. There's a reason they amass so much of the country's resources, and they've had 40+ years to entrench.

But they don't always win, and this seems to be a populist moment. I only hope the Dems will be wise enough to realize that, and not put up an Establishment candidate.

The GOP was kind enough to shed themselves of the Bushes. We should feel obliged to shake off the Clintons.
 
 
+4 # fletch1165 2016-03-17 06:50
Bernie had over 5 million individual contributors to Hillary's 875,000 as of a week ago. I am not buying that she won many of these recent states without the help of Diebold. Its over a 6:1 ratio in donators. She is not popular.
 
 
+5 # PCPrincess 2016-03-17 07:50
Not only do I agree with you, I can say without a doubt that there was most certainly cheating going on in those five states. How about we use some of our free time and the power of the internet to see what we can find out? Until May 20, when I finish the last semester of what has been six straight years of college, I'll be a bit busy, but then, its on. This election is too important to 'allow' this crap to go unmentioned.
 
 
-2 # Shades of gray matter 2016-03-16 19:14
I have lived in mid America for what seems like centuries, and in a huge state with a YUUGE Latino population. I agree that religion has declined in influence among many whites. But in the Univision survey, the #2 electoral concern of Latino females is "Religion." Religion is YUUGE to most voting African Americans. We cannot wish away the limiting influence of atheism, socialism. However, it no longer matters, this cycle.
 
 
+1 # PeacefulGarden 2016-03-17 05:29
Ya, think Wall Street owns the NYTs?
 
 
+3 # lark3650 2016-03-17 05:32
I urge everyone to watch the documentary done by Robert Kane Pappas, "Orwell Rolls in this Grave". It's a must!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-03-17 17:34
Here's a 10 minute clip from that excellent documentary that features a certain Senator from Vermont calling out this corporate propaganda we call "news."

It may be 10 years old, but it is more timely than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzUtGMF9Uw
 
 
0 # Khidr 2016-03-17 09:39
I think Bernie needs to borrow a few tricks from Trumps play. Declare war on Hillary, DNC, & Wasserman...... .........
 
 
+3 # Phillybuster 2016-03-17 10:50
We must remember Hillary's words from 2008, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of (her) abandoning the race.
 
 
+2 # Gwalihir 2016-03-17 13:54
Unfortunately, it's all a matter of perspective in this case. The NYT can choose whatever slant they want, as long as they don't commit outright slander.

Thank goodness for RSN. They certainly deserve our support. Of course, conservatives (I include HRC under that label) would argue that RSN shows a biased perspective, and from one point of view, they do. I would like to believe that RSN's "slant" is a bit closer to the truth.
 
 
+2 # scoff 2016-03-17 19:26
Want to keep the revolution going?

Support national and state level candidates that support Bernie's vision.

http://sandersdemocrats.com/
 
 
0 # macserp44 2016-03-19 21:50
Boycott the New York Times until they can start covering the revolution.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN