RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Boardman writes: "The front page story is about such issues as 'work force anxieties,' 'shrinking middle class,' 'stagnant wages,' and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Reuters)

Bernie Sanders Blindsided by New York Times Blackout

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

16 July 15


Media bias: sometimes it’s invisible until you look for it

he front page story is about such issues as “work force anxieties,” “shrinking middle class,” “stagnant wages,” and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders, although it mentions others with less credibility. 

That is the level of intellectual dishonesty actually achieved by the Times in its July 13 page one story headlined “Growth in the ‘Gig Economy’ Fuels Work Force Anxieties.” Two of the most relevant words excluded from the 1700-word story are “Bernie Sanders,” even though it includes two Republican and Hillary Clinton. 

It’s intellectually dishonest to write about these issues without mentioning the Independent senator from Vermont now running for the Democratic nomination for president as a Democratic Socialist. It is also deceitful and would be journalistic malpractice for anyone purporting to practice actual journalism. 

But the Times has long since ceased to be “the paper of record” in this country, which no longer has a paper (or any media) of record. The Times still serves, as it always has, as the voice of the establishment. That explains the paper’s “balanced” view here of the “gig economy” and the two generations of economic suffering it represents. Reporter Noam Scheiber’s anecdote-ridden story shimmers with an upper income bias, as befits any ambitious Times reporter looking with disdainful sympathy at lesser earners driven increasingly into jobs that are variously part-time, short-term, temporary, or freelance but almost universally more insecure and lower-paying than people could expect from the American economy 50 years ago

Hillary Clinton takes on “the vision thing” in a Bushlike manner

Bernie Sanders has railed against such economic injustice for almost as long, but Scheiber and/or his editors lack the integrity to mention that, even when they quote a supporter of Hillary Clinton saying:  “People know things are changing. They don’t feel like anyone has a handle on it. There’s a yearning for a political vision that addresses that.”

Well, yes, that seems to be true. That also seems to explain why Bernie Sanders continues to surge in the polls since declaring for president in May. Though Clinton still holds a formidable lead, it has been shrinking, and her total support has been shrinking for several months.

The Clinton supporter who spoke of vision, Neera Tanden of the Center of American Progress, also demonstrated the essential deceit required to turn Clinton into the desired visionary. She said, “Whether America will be America or not hinges on whether we have a downward spiral around wages.” That sort of sounds good until you break it down. Then it’s apparent it’s a necessary lie for the Clinton campaign. It’s a lie because it suggests the “downward spiral” is a future threat, not a 50-year reality. And it’s a necessary Clinton campaign fiction because Hillary Clinton has not been there for the 99% for most of her career as she amassed a reported fortune of some $300 million. Clinton needs to have an effective marketing campaign to persuade enough voters that she has this imaginary “vision,” as the Times noted obliquely:

On Monday [July 13], Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to give a speech outlining her vision for improving the economic fortunes of the middle class. Leading Republicans, like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have framed their policy ideas as an attempt to solve economic insecurity and the erosion of middle-class incomes. 

Nice touch by the Times, using the “vision” language of the candidate’s sales pitch. As it turned out, Clinton’s “economic fortunes” speech was a tortured balancing act promising some help to those with less while trying not to offend those with actual economic fortunes. This was the perfect point for an honest reporter to mention Bernie Sanders, who has spent his whole career deliberately offending “millionaires and billionaires” while calling for economic justice for the rest of America. 

In the Times, reality turns out to be a variable to be manipulated

But the contrast between Clinton and Sanders was apparently too stark for the Times, and too unflattering to Clinton, who has no record showing her having the courage of her convictions, or even of having identifiable convictions. Instead, the Times refers to two establishment-friendly Republicans whose economic views are less just than Clinton’s, but who have similar marketing campaigns for their “visions.” Bush and Rubio aren’t even the current leading contenders for the Republican nomination for president, even though they pose no threat to the present oligarchic status quo.   

In recent polling published July 14, Bush was second with 14% and Rubio was fifth with 5% in a nine-candidate field. Tellingly, the Times omitted the leader and two others ahead of Rubio. Running first, with 17%, was Donald Trump. Scott Walker at 8% was third and Ted Cruz at 6% was fourth. The Times bias among Republicans seems pretty clear, albeit unstated. 

The Times bias among Democrats is stark. The Times presents a picture in which Clinton has no opposition, even though Sanders at 20% or more is polling better in his chosen party than any Republican in the Republican Party. In polling published July 10, Clinton is at 55%, Sanders at 24%. Tied for third, with 8%, are Joe Biden and Undecided. Clinton still leads by 30-plus points, but when Sanders entered the race on May 26, her lead was 50-plus points.  

Whatever those numbers may mean, and however they may change, they were a present reality that the Times chose to ignore in order to present a false reality.

In another slippery paragraph, Scheiber falsifies reality in a subtler way. Discussing the non-job jobs of the “gig economy,” he writes:

The decades-long shift to these more flexible workplace arrangements, the venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and the labor leader David Rolf argue in the latest issue of Democracy Journal, is a “transformation that promises new efficiencies and greater flexibility for ‘employers’ and ‘employees’ alike, but which threatens to undermine the very foundation upon which middle-class America was built.”

 Is it an existential crisis if you’re a millionaire or billionaire?  

Then there’s no more about this, despite the threat to “the very foundation” of once-basic American values. It’s as if the Times is assuring its readers: never mind, these are just “flexible workplace arrangements,” not a half century business policy to take money and peace of mind from millions of American families. You’d never know from the Times reference that the article in Democracy Journal begins by describing a very different reality:

The American middle class is facing an existential crisis. For more than three decades, declining wages, fraying benefits, and the rising costs of education, housing, and other essentials have stressed and squeezed middle-class Americans. But by far the biggest threat to middle-class workers – and to our economy as a whole – comes from the changing nature of employment itself.

Gone is the era of the lifetime career, let alone the lifelong job and the economic security that came with it, having been replaced by a new economy intent on recasting full-time employees into contractors, vendors, and temporary workers. It is an economic transformation that promises new efficiencies and greater flexibility for “employers” and “employees” alike, but which threatens to undermine the very foundation upon which middle-class America was built. And if the American middle class crumbles, so will an American economy that relies on consumer spending for 70 percent of its activity, and on a diverse and inclusive workforce for 100 percent of the innovation that drives all future prosperity.

The dilemma for the Times (and  most mainstream media) is that if the “existential crisis” is as real as the vast evidence supporting it, then there’s only one candidate in the race facing reality, and it’s not Hillary Clinton. It’s Bernie Sanders. But he’s an outsider challenging longstanding establishment policy carried out with remarkable consistency by both major parties for 50 years. Or, as Hanauer and Rolf put it more clearly and bluntly than the mystifiers at the Times will allow:

This crisis is not unfolding in a vacuum. For more than 30 years, the Democratic Party has suffered from a crisis of identity, leadership, and vision on issues of political economy that has left it unable to either articulate or defend the true interests of the middle class. Democrats might tinker around the edges, arguing for more economic justice and fairness, but for the most part they have largely accepted, or at least failed to counter, the fictitious trickle-down explanation of what growth is (higher profits) and where it comes from (lower taxes and less regulation). And so, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, corporate America has seen less regulation, lower taxes, and higher profits, while middle-class America has gotten the shaft. 

The rest of this long article is a devastating critique of the present American economic order – or as many experience it, economic disorder without reliable quality, accountability, or fairness. You wouldn’t know it from the Times, but the recommendations from Hanauer and Rolf overlap significantly with the Sanders Economic Agenda published December 2014. Nor would you know from the Times that Nick Hanauer, a billionaire by way of, is at least a philosophical supporter of Bernie Sanders. One of Hanauer’s post comments is: “The business lobby has been resisting labor standards since child labor. Overtime is no different.” (He posted the Times article with a cryptic “Very interesting” comment.) 

Clinton bobs and weaves and delivers ringing ambivalence

On July 14, the Times covered Clinton’s economic speech on page 13, not page one, but still managed to give it a pimping-for-Hillary headline: “Clinton Offers Her Vision of a ‘Fairness Economy’ to Close the Income Gap” even though the paper reported no evidence of anything like an actual “vision.” In essence, Clinton said she’d like to see things stay pretty much the same, just not quite so bad for so many. 

According to Times reporter Amy Chozick, “incomes for the vast majority of Americans whose wages have remained virtually stagnant for 15 years,” which gets the time-frame wrong by 35 years. This error is consistent with her reporting the “widespread feeling that the economic recovery has not benefited large parts of the population” [emphasis added], which is not a feeling at all, but demonstrable fact. Then Chozick offers this false choice as a central challenge for the Clinton campaign:  “… devising an agenda that addresses income inequality without vilifying the wealthy….” 

This is the Times elitist zeitgeist showing through. First, the issue is not just “income inequality” but the staggering, growing “wealth disparity” – which is best left unmentioned. As far as “income inequality” goes, vilification is irrelevant. The simple solution is to tax large incomes. The wealthy may “feel” that as vilification, but it’s just economic balancing. And the Times approvingly, but falsely, quotes Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, who advises Clinton, saying: “the speech showed a clear understanding that our economy is not working for most Americans” and that “we need to fundamentally rewrite the rules.” The false part is that Clinton has never come close to seeking a fundamental revision of any rules. Only Sanders does that. And the Times made clear that Clinton “did not embrace the fiery populism of Senator Bernie Sanders…. And she stopped short of endorsing policies championed by Mr. Sanders and others in the liberal wing of the party….” 

Times sets up straw man argument, then defeats its own unreality

Also on July 14, on page 3, the Times ran a denigrating piece about Sanders, in which Nate Cohn snidely and dismissively ridicules Sanders’ chances of winning anything. His argument centers on the past losses of centrist liberals like Howard Dean and Bill Bradley. At the same time, Cohn ignores the substance as well as the style of the Sanders campaign, its apparent growing appeal to voters, and the distinction that Sanders makes: that his democratic socialism in not ideology but about class-based justice. As Sanders put it: “I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”

Clinton criticized Republicans for their “trickle down” economic theories, which is fine as far as it goes. With Clinton, it doesn’t seem to go very far. What is her touted “profit-sharing” but a form of “trickle down” economics? Sharing profits is a manageable shibboleth. It’s not sharing ownership.

Trickle down is also a way to describe the infusion of chemo treatment to fight cancer. Current American economics are a form of economic cancer for the majority of Americans. With human cancer, an infusion is frequently blocked by an “upstream occlusion.” Treatment continues when the upstream occlusion is cleared. The American economy has suffered from an upstream occlusion for half a century. Clinton has benefitted greatly from this blockage of treatment for the country’s economic cancer. So far she has shown no sign of unblocking any cure.  

Bernie Sanders has always been all about serious treatment for a sick economy. Bernie Sander is getting to be a bigger and bigger elephant in the room where denial of the cancer remains powerful. Eventually perhaps the Times and the rest of mainstream media will begin to talk about him honestly. But they are all part of the cancerous system and benefit from it. So perhaps a more radical infusion will come through other channels.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


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

+83 # davidr 2015-07-16 13:04
Boardman is right on the nose in the 4th graf: "But the Times has long since ceased to be 'the paper of record' in this country, which no longer has a paper (or any media) of record."

And it's worse than that. The electorate & the professional politicians whom it employs, do not, by and large, accept the following proposition and its postulates: (i) that there are objective facts & empirical tests which (ii) would be recognized as such by alert & fair-minded people of any political view, which (iii) require one or more "papers of record" to (iv) articulate them within honest, coherent reportage, because doing so (v) is essential to a free & decent civics.

In this respect, (even though we are less religious year by year) we are not a secular society. We have been taken over by the idea that opinion is fact. We are believers not in God necessarily, but in belief itself. Facts ("the reality-based community") are worldly snares; belief is transcendent ("when we act, we create our own reality").

Readers & reporters alike want to be in the ascendant elite that creates its own reality. There is no paper of record, because everyone wants to have their very own record.
+39 # tedrey 2015-07-16 13:27
Very well stated, davidr, but such "papers of record" would have to be free of both government and business restraints, and thus be heavily supported by their readers -- which hasn't been true in my lifetime and which the very financial crisis of RSN this month shows has not yet been achieved.
+2 # RLF 2015-07-22 06:04
Most of the press including NPR is too close to power to have any perspective. They have all sold their souls for access.
+69 # Radscal 2015-07-16 14:31
We are all the victims of a brilliant, scientific 24/7 propaganda machine the likes of which Bernays and Goebbels could have only dreamt.
+20 # CelticNavigator 2015-07-16 15:00
The ONLY "paper of record" on the planet I am familiar with is the London Times. Their reportage was considered so impeccably accurate that their stories were admissible as evidence in British courts. I don't know if that is still the case, though...
+12 # ritawalpoleague 2015-07-17 08:40
FYI, CelticNavigator , 'twas The Guardian that covered well (front page on its Sunday edition) the initial court ruling in the 'case of the century', Hedges, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.. Ruling came in heftily in favor of plaintiffs - some of the best journalists, peace and justice activists, whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and Hon. Birgitta Jonsdottir, Iceland's member of parliament and a supporter/prote ctor of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange.

U.S. press minimized coverage or did not cover at all this vital 'quashing of the U.S. Constitution by Pres. Obama's silent signing (after he said he would veto it) the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Now, with Obama, et. al. appealing decision, and the Supremes (no big surprise) ruling in favor of the article in that NDAA that permits military to arrest any citizen(s) and throw them into 'indefinite detention' with no due process (trial), we the dumbed down sheeple are endlessly oblivious of democracy gone bye bye.

Bernie Sanders has word of mouth vs. the 'mess' media spreading his longtime people vs. self serving determination, vs. only the 'naïve plus' jumping onboard the Hill the Shill and G.O.P. candidates' MORE OF THE SAME train, led by non-free press lack of coverage of candidate Bernie Sanders, the same.....

+3 # GrittedTeeth 2015-07-19 07:10
Certainly not the case anymore, I can assure you as a disappointed Brit. It is just another Murdoch rag. We have very few, if any, "papers of record", they are all "papers of propaganda".
+51 # WallStWallFlowerGirl 2015-07-16 17:01
And thus, it is of divine intervention, either by entities greater than ourselves or fate of the times, that the Third Reich did not have iPhones.

I absolutely love that William Boardman penned: "journalistic malpractice." No truer words hath been spoken to describe the behemoth machine of corporate media. Guilty of dereliction of duty; forsaking the Fourth Estate for the spoils of the victors who dip their bread crumbs in caviar, in order to sway public opinion that "war is peace." They wouldn't know veracity if served on an oil-slicked platter.

And as much as American ignorance has taken the bait off the hook from the propaganda fishing pole, it doesn't mean that those of us who don't bite, have to give up. That is why we are in here; that's why we write Letters to Editors; that's why we talk amongst ourselves and reach out to those who aren't... especially if they aren't; that is why we vote.

Years ago, when I talked about Bernie, the most oft reply was: "Who's Bernie?" His name doesn't come with a question mark like before, if at all. My concern is not that he cannot get elected- because I absolutely DO believe he CAN; my concern is focused on the "powers that be" and those bastards that can pick up a phone and destroy all that is good with one slimy fingertip. Avarice and hegemony are forces to be reckoned with and some times, the nice guys don't win not because they can't, but because they won't fight fire with fire.

Just saying......... .............
+76 # tswhiskers 2015-07-16 13:31
I will say again that Bernie is one of the few honest, plain-speaking politicians in America. He speaks to and for the ENTIRE American public. He is so unscripted that the establishment media don't know how deal with him. Hillary, like Obama, is the average mediocre politician who has always run this country with a few notable exceptions. I feel certain that Bernie will rectify our top-down economy. I feel equally certain that Hillary may alleviate some of our problems, but in the end she will just quietly support Wall St. banks and hedge funds, just as Obama and his Atty-General did. Since Truman left office we have been incapable of finding honest, authentic politicians to run for office. I suspect that money has badly corrupted office-holders. It seems true that few politicians in the U.S. leave office no richer than when they entered it. To davidr I would say there is no paper of record because there is bias everywhere; journalists and broadcasters are no longer objective or caring about the truth. There are at least 2 sides to an issue, never just the truth.
+3 # MainStreetMentor 2015-07-18 19:24
I agree, tswhiskers. I do note, however, that when the NYT "shuns" someone it usually means they are afraid of that person/entity. In THAT sense, the NYT ommission is a boon for Bernie.
0 # RLF 2015-07-22 06:02
The rich are afraid of Bernie...and where is richer than Manhattan?
+43 # reiverpacific 2015-07-16 13:32
Not to sound like a smart arse but I've predicted this from the beginning of this far too lengthy dig for dollars thinly disguised as sorry collection campaigns.
Especially in the case of the openly pro-populist Sanders.
I'd like to see him win or shove the others to a measure of communication with the generally-despi sed "Little people", just to shove their brown noses and fingers up their own has his-blowin' exhaust pipe rear-ends.
The smugly self-serving "We're always right" NYT Is just one of the many US Owner-media, blinkered outlets with a digit in the air (And a Middle finger in a salutary gesture to the grassroots voter) to gauge the political current and who can get them the most advertising lucre.
As America's greatest poet once wrote;
"You don't need a Weatherman to see which way the wind blows".
-72 # ericlipps 2015-07-16 13:38
But does Bernie Sanders actually have a chance of winning anything?

I can remember when people on the left oohed and ahhed over Jesse Jackson--but the good Reverend didn't get the nomination, or the VP spot, and after a teary-eyed speech at the 1988 Democratic convention sat on his hands until the last few weeks before the November vote--then raced from camera to camera campaigning insincerely for Dukakis to obscure the painfully obvious truth that he had decided that if he couldn't be president, no Democrat would, so there!

Now, Bernie's no Jesse. But he is an avowed socialist, which is a ball and chain around the ankle of his campaign. Even if the Times gushed for Bernie every day, all that would do is convince people (may of whom are already sure of it anyway) that the paper was just a left-wing rag; it wouldn't help Sanders win the nomination, let alone the election.
+69 # Anonymot 2015-07-16 13:53
You may be right, but if everyone just sits on their thumbs in these times of neofascist provocation you'll see Germany arise from the ashes of America's attempt at semi-democracy.

Fight it or die.
+38 # universlman 2015-07-16 15:06
Linking Bernie with Jesse is what Eric is doing. He could just as easily have linked him to Obama, with whom he has a lot more in common than Jesse Jackson, including showing up larger than life in Hillary's rear view mirror.
+63 # Radscal 2015-07-16 14:37
Sanders' policies are exactly those supported by huge majorities of USians:

The corporate media pretends Sanders is "extreme" or "out there," but he is actually mainstream. It is most other politicians who are "out there" on the far right.
+91 # djnova50 2015-07-16 14:42
If Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, then so am I. I support the same things as he does. Bernie has my vote.
+43 # kalpal 2015-07-16 14:47
Strange that a news outlet determines more than a year in advance of an election that an announced candidate should not be mentioned in stories whose topics he has been working on for many years, right?
+32 # wrknight 2015-07-16 17:06
Whoever accused the Times of being a news outlet hasn't kept up with the times. At one time, that was true. Sad to say that time was long ago.
+41 # reiverpacific 2015-07-16 15:47
Quoting ericlipps:
But does Bernie Sanders actually have a chance of winning anything?

I can remember when people on the left oohed and ahhed over Jesse Jackson--but the good Reverend didn't get the nomination, or the VP spot, and after a teary-eyed speech at the 1988 Democratic convention sat on his hands until the last few weeks before the November vote--then raced from camera to camera campaigning insincerely for Dukakis to obscure the painfully obvious truth that he had decided that if he couldn't be president, no Democrat would, so there!

Now, Bernie's no Jesse. But he is an avowed socialist, which is a ball and chain around the ankle of his campaign. Even if the Times gushed for Bernie every day, all that would do is convince people (may of whom are already sure of it anyway) that the paper was just a left-wing rag; it wouldn't help Sanders win the nomination, let alone the election.

It's a crushing indictment -if you're right- that the term 'Socialist" carries the weight of a ball and chain in this powerful but mostly, ignorant and selectively-edu cated country (of the rest of the world and even of it's own identity and history).
If nothing else, Sander's stances -which look to be popular at present, especially among the younger demographic, latinos, blacks and natives, will pull some of the country out of the shadows of the appalling, fear-inspiring McCarthy era.
He's the ONLY one who has openly declared that healthcare is a human right.
+10 # Anarchist 23 2015-07-18 18:37
I'm voting for Bernie if I have to write him for the lesser of two evils has only enabled the greater evils. If it is throwing my vote away, it is a better cast than other elections when the candidate I voted for...the lesser evil...did as great evil as the other side.
+2 # fletch1165 2015-07-20 03:38
I'm campaigning for Bernie! Our first pot luck is the 29th and there will be up to 100 of us to get started. Let's make this a grass roots movement. That's how Obama got in. We can do it and get it right this time....
+1 # fletch1165 2015-07-20 03:32
How is the New York Times a left wing rag when it is nearly 100% pro-Israeli? William Saphire who is an employee of the times was an open propagandist that pedaled stories on Yellowcake, WOMD, those aluminum cylinders they pretended were weapons, Saddam behind 9/11, Saddam al Qaeda connections. You name anything about getting the war started and the fake evidence, and William Saphire and the far right fascist RIGHT WING NY Times promoted it.

The Times later did apologize for its fake reporting and embedded journalists that lied through their teeth. However no sweeping reforms were actually made. To this day William Saphire remains on the pay roll. And though he no longer has a daily propaganda piece, his editorials still appear.

So calling the Times accepted as being " a left wing rag" is truly preposterous and has zero basis in reality. Clearly its a right wing shit rag for corporations involved with Israel and our war machine especially.
+70 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-16 13:40
I haven't bought a New York Times for the past 45 years. Today I am cancelling acceptance of their Internet e-mailed approximation of 'news'. Join me. If the Old Times sees enough withdrawal at their ignorance and bias, perhaps they will spread the runes again.

My sense is that with this Super Pac of Clintonesque disinformation, the Gray Lady now extols "all the views we choose to print" and lays down the gauntlet of plutocracy in a desperate effort to undermine the rising tide of progressiveness that Bernie Sanders represents.

No Republican candidate can hold a candle to Bernie's message, policies and energy. Hillary is a sham pretender to the Sanders/Warren/ Grayson/Brown future middle class focus that America needs and polls overwhelmingly support.

The broken glass and razor-wire encrusted castle compounds of the rich sparkle with high tech cameras, security staff and personal bodyguards that whisk them from closed event to self-congratula tory media entertainment story.

Read about them in The New York Times where 'fair and balanced' competition between Busheedum and Hillaridede will invest a couple of billion dollars for propaganda space on airways and in tabloids. The clown car drumbeat of divisive religious righteousness will empty the pockets of contributing fundamentalist simplifiers and the casino billionaires will invest in the Derby horserace with their pocket change.

We shall overcome!
+26 # wrknight 2015-07-16 17:09
I already cancelled my on-line subscription three years ago. Why pay for bullshit?
+45 # Art947 2015-07-16 13:55
I learned about the bias of the NY Times in the early 1970's when I was told about their reporting of local politics in NY City. I teach my students to be skeptical of anything that they read in the NYT as I relate a story of "facts" that they reported about a program that I coordinated. Their facts were totally in error, however, they were quoted by others who indicated that they "got their information from the NYT." So much for objective reporting.

BTW, you might remember their motto as satirized by Mad Magazine: "All the news that fits their point of view they print!"
+38 # Radscal 2015-07-16 14:28
I read the transcript of Ms. Clinton’s Economy Speech at New School for Social Research

What is her “vision?”

“broader business tax reform to spur investment “
“$1,500 apprenticeship tax credit”
“Tax Credit and Empowerment Zones”
“reform capital gains taxes to reward longer-term investments “
“Empowering outside investors”
“new public investments that will help established businesses and entrepreneurs “
“fund the scientific and medical research”
“establish an infrastructure bank… [to fund] build those faster broadband networks… investments in cleaner, renewable energy”

Wait. Those are all “trickle down” policies helping businesses and "externalizing" costs to taxpayers.

What about Wall Street?

“rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors”
“prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrongdoing”

Great! What new rules does she propose?

“I will protect the reforms we’ve made”

Yeah, they’re working SO good, eh?

What about actual working-class people?

“raise the minimum wage”
Immigration Reform for “Bringing millions of hard-working people into the formal economy”
“enhancing Social Security”
“tax relief and simplification”

What do things like "enhancing" and "simplification " really mean? Maybe we can discern that from who she expects to do it:

“leadership from the financial industry and across the private sector”
+23 # bullslam 2015-07-16 23:58
The one important thing everyone needs to know about Hillary is that she is a member of the Council on Foreign Affairs. What you need to know about that secret organization is this: SO IS DICK CHENEY! So is Wolfowitz, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Karl Rove, the Bush people and all the other Neo-Con members of PNAC; the Project for the New American Century! Oh, they took down the website as soon as they realized a lot of people were visiting it. PNAC proclaims that they have a mandate to invade any country which might have resources which they can help themselves to and fuck the wishes and welfare of the people of that nation. Pretty fart smellers! Gracious me, did I say that? I meant pretty smart fellers. Ha!
+36 # Seadog 2015-07-16 14:32
If anyone running is focused laser like on the economy its Sanders and the Times isn't about to give him a Nat'l platform to express views they find far to the left of the Establishment liberal view on this issue. Hillary isn't going to challenge the ruling Oligopoly, precisely because she's part of it and Sanders isn't. She's as safe to the PTB as any Republican running.
+35 # futhark 2015-07-16 14:34
Why should the Sanders campaign be "blindsided" by this behavior? They should have expected it. Look at the campaigns of candidates in recent years who have marched to the beat of the different drum: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein, Cynthia McKinney, and Rocky Anderson all come to mind and all were ignored and marginalized by mainstream media. Paul and Kucinich were also denigrated by mainstream commentators. The last thing those holding political and economic power under the current system want is someone who is going to shake things up. The easiest way to nip this threat in the bud is to not give it any free coverage. To do so only invites a general political movement.
+8 # bingers 2015-07-17 08:26
Ron Paul deserves ignoring since he's wrong about 85% of the time, but Kucinich was right about everything, like Sanders.
+28 # elkingo 2015-07-16 14:58
The media in this country have long been front-men and apologists for the ruling establishment. I think this has so pervaded our consciousness that we are incapable of thinking or expecting anything else. This has seemed for a long time like creeping Orwellianism except that it's not creeping anymore but accelerating. Sacred exceptions are people like Bernie and Boardman.
+21 # angelfish 2015-07-16 15:04
The New York Times MAY, at one time, have printed "ALL the News that's fit to print", however, today, its best used to wrap garbage. Bernie Sanders will do just fine without having their particular stench on him as he runs a People's Campaign and doesn't need their tainted endorsement. GO Bernie! On to Victory in 2016!
+22 # MarthaA 2015-07-16 15:05
No one should buy the New York Times as a form of news. As far as the populace majority is concerned the New York Times is bankrupt, defunct and no longer exists. The New York Times, along with the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and all Main Stream Television and Radio are all CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA rags to denigrate and marginalize the left, which should make it massively clear to even the uttermost unaware that Hillary Clinton is a lying RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST money grubber, instead of the populace supporter she is being promoted and promoting herself to be.
+44 # Scott Galindez 2015-07-16 15:08
I have also noticed the absence of the New York Times at many significant Bernie events. John Wagoner of the Washington Post is doing a good job covering Bernie but the Times is missing in action.

There was no story in the times after the Denver rally which was the largest at the time, but they led the political page with Hillary speaking to the Conference of Mayors. That spoke volumes...
-7 # Thomas0008 2015-07-16 15:32
Why the BS pretending it would be different?
+18 # tanis 2015-07-16 15:23
I guess the Times was taking notes for the past few weeks. Besides running for president is not the main message Bernie gives us, he is the messenger. If americans are listening, there is a message there for all.
-26 # Thomas0008 2015-07-16 15:30
So tell me,why the BS article? You are so childish that you expected something else from the NYT? Are you just a tool pretending to care? Or just plain DUMB?
-18 # Thomas0008 2015-07-16 17:38
My my, I guess I struck a cord of Truth ! What is the ole saying about truth, in times of lies being the "normal"?
+11 # tedrey 2015-07-16 18:08
Thomas0008: It's an unfortunate mental weakness to assume that the moment one figures something out oneself for the first time then everybody else should immediately know it also, and it's thereafter presumptuous to speak of it. This is such an obvious mental lapse that I'm embarassed for you that I have to print it out.
-20 # Thomas0008 2015-07-16 18:37
gee teddy ur brilliant. du u have a degree, or just a high fever?
+11 # Radscal 2015-07-16 20:29
And then there are those who dislike ad hominem and value-free opinions.
+8 # tedrey 2015-07-17 09:04
Thomas000-: I have a couple of degrees and a cold in the nose. Neither affects what I am now telling you for your own good.

When you find out that a large number of people disagree with what you say, you can either jump to the conclusion that they are all stupider than you are, or else that you should reconsider your positions -- or at least the terms in which you have stated them.

Otherwise you are useless to the conversation and will be ignored.
+15 # reiverpacific 2015-07-16 19:17
Quoting Thomas0008:
My my, I guess I struck a cord of Truth ! What is the ole saying about truth, in times of lies being the "normal"?

No; it's your arrogant, brow-beating tone of address that's offending folks.
Even truth, however unpalatable, is better delivered with at least a modicum of respect for those you categorize as "Childish" and "Dumb".
As I wrote, I've predicted this since Sanders declared but also tried not sound like a prophet or pre-emptive smart arse.
Try a little humility sometime -it might get you some respect in return.
+19 # Merlin 2015-07-16 15:59
Something to be aware of:

From the article:
“The Clinton supporter who spoke of vision, Neera Tanden of the Center of American Progress, also demonstrated the essential deceit required to turn Clinton into the desired visionary.”

From Wiki:
The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.

The CAP is often portrayed in the MSM as if it is a “Liberal” left wing organization. It is not that at all in my view. It represents the clintonista—DLC —Third Way thinking, which is center right at best, in my view. Rather, it represents Wall Street. Here is Black on the Third Way:

William K. Black said that "Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street--it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort."

Beware of everything that CAP says!
+6 # Radscal 2015-07-16 18:14
The late, and VERY great folk/protest singer/songwrit er Phil Ochs introduced his “Love Me, I’m a Liberal” thusly:

“In every American community you have varying shades of political opinion; one of the shadiest of these is the Liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects: ten degrees to the left of center in good times, and ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.”
+15 # jwb110 2015-07-16 16:09
The NY Times is a rag and has been since the 80's. It is one big editorial from the front page to the last. It isn't worth the time it would take to read it.
+10 # wrknight 2015-07-16 17:17
Quoting jwb110:
The NY Times is a rag and has been since the 80's. It is one big editorial from the front page to the last. It isn't worth the time it would take to read it.

Much less the cost of the paper on which it is written.
+20 # jimmyjames 2015-07-16 16:21
All of us Bernie supporters may as well be prepared to see MSM, including NYT, ignore our populist candidate, Bernie Sanders. It has just started and will become more and more obvious as time goes on. What we will have to rely on is our alternative news such as RSN to understand the facts and find honesty in reporting. Fortunately, most thinking Americans do NOT rely on MSM. We have come to learn that they are all controlled by the large corporate interests and are NOT to be trusted - at all. Let's just hope that there are enough of us to overcome the lies and bias of the mainstream media.
+16 # Buddha 2015-07-16 16:23
If Bernie was truly "Blindsided" that the Times would do this, then wow. A blind man could see it coming, anybody with a brain knew that the mainstream corporate media would do everything in its power to discredit and delegitimize his campaign, just as Clinton surrogates like McCaskill were going to attack him, because he and the policies he proposes threaten the Oligarchic New World Order's complete hegemony of American and global political and economic policy.
+10 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-16 20:03
When one couples Boardman's indictment of the Times' pseudo-intellec tual puff piece on 'somewhat' progressive Clinton interests with Merlin's WIKI notations above ... it really DOES make the New York Times look like a Hillary Super Pac. If you look at the Times and Fox as the Abbott & Costello comedy team of pretense journalism - feigning a reprise of "Who's On First" - it is obvious that the term PROGRESSIVE is not part of their vocabulary. I wonder if the crossword puzzle will have to be dumbed down soon.
+10 # hjsteed 2015-07-16 17:42
New York Times? "News Fit to Print"?

Do the Owners & Editorial Staff still report that planes brought the buildings down at the World Trade Center on 911 supporting the 'justification' for launching an endless Terrorist War on Terrorism that has killed, injured & displaced millions of innocent civilians since then?

Should the Owners & Editors be charged with being complicit in aiding & abetting Grave War Crimes?
+11 # tedrey 2015-07-16 18:15
What would happen if Bernie caught up with H.Clinton in the polls, and then the DNC said he couldn't debate? Would we take it quietly?
+26 # tedrey 2015-07-16 18:22
I've never cared to categorize myself, but if socialism is defined as what Bernie is calling for now, then I guess I'm a socialist.
And if Socialism means standing solid with people in other countries who have the same goals, then I'm definitely a Socialist.
And if we can get back to the Socialism that opposed all non-defensive wars, then HELL, YES, I'm a Socialist!!!
+9 # Krackonis 2015-07-16 18:24
Welcome to Canada.
+3 # tedrey 2015-07-17 19:29
Not till Harper's gone. Anyway, my fight is here.
+15 # tedrey 2015-07-16 18:28
By the way, unpleasant as it seems, we should all try to get reader's comments not only into RSM, but also into the NYT, WashPO, et al. Just as John Dillinger robbed banks because "that's where the money is," the MSM letters pages are where the possible converts are. The right knows this. (But do be more rational and non-vitriolic about it that they do -- that's not difficult.)
+11 # CL38 2015-07-16 19:33
One of the best responses to the LameStreamMedia silence is to go to an organizing meeting for Bernie's campaign and get involved. Let's see how long they remain silent when a huge majority is backing Bernie.
+12 # Wally Jasper 2015-07-16 20:57
Yes, the evening of July 29 is when Bernie's campaign is setting up organizing meetings all over the country, and Bernie is going to be addressing everyone via livestream, letting us know what we all can do for the campaign. Go to his website and go to Events. You can enter your zipcode and find an organizing meeting near you. I live in a very small town and there are already three being hosted. In the larger cities nearby there are dozens. Very exciting.
+8 # Radscal 2015-07-16 22:56
Now you went and found me an event in my VERY conservative town.

+7 # dquandle 2015-07-16 19:42
The Times needs a letter campaign demanding that it be printed on softer paper.
+7 # Wally Jasper 2015-07-16 20:59
You mean, toilet paper?
+11 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-16 20:43
FDR's New Deal was attacked as 'democratic socialism'. Scandinavian countries are 'social democracies' and enjoy (according to Wikipedia) The world's Most equal income distribution; Highest human development Index; Highest level of Democracy; Highest level of gender equality; Highest government budget surplus;Most technologically advanced; Most stable country; Most property rights; Most press freedom; Highest prosperity;and highest Student Performance in Science.

So, what is it that the oligarchs and corporatists and Republicans (Oh, yeah! and the New York Times) consider so "outside" their mainstream?
+11 # Vardoz 2015-07-16 20:44
Nevertheless people are working hard to raise money and put their hearts and souls into helping Sanders succeed.

James commented Bernie Sanders- Presidential Candidate For The People.

2:29pm Jul 16

2:28pm Jul 16
Wow, we gathered $95,767 yesterday! A huge round of applause to everyone! #FeelTheBern #Bernie2016 #ElectingBernie OrMovingToMars

8:56am Jul 16
THANK YOU!!!!^^^^^^^^ ^^^

7:52am Jul 16
I'm sixty and on disability, but I believe in him and I donated. I live on seven hundred a month but maybe there's hope when Bernie is President.
+8 # Radscal 2015-07-16 22:58
Old, broke and broken, but just made my first ever Presidential campaign donation.
+8 # dsepeczi 2015-07-17 07:36
Quoting Radscal:
Old, broke and broken, but just made my first ever Presidential campaign donation.

Me too. I really see Bernie's candidacy as one of the last chances, if not THE last chance, to turn this country around.
+9 # bullslam 2015-07-17 00:42
I'm seventy-six and SSI pays me the same amount as you. We really must expand SSI payments! For 25 years I worked contributing to the common good wherever I went -- as an underpaid Contract Worker.

I have not yet donated but I will. Bernie has been doing things right for a long, long time.

Socialism is the medicine for this vile End-Game Capitalism. The Capitalist paradigm which the NYT surely subscribes to, goes like this:

"He who dies with the most toys, WINS!"

As an expression of a nihilistic world view it mocks philosophy and denies the possibility of meaning, and at the same time tells the truth about the materialist's outlook.

I compare that to the death of my steel-worker father. His final act was to spread a beatific smile across his face. A smile which transcended mere well-being. He had sent his children into the world where they would achieve far more than he did.
+9 # Old4Poor 2015-07-16 22:49
This is typical Main Stream Media control of the process. Not much different from FOX trying to control whom the GOP candidates are.

They did the same thing to Dennis Kucinich, treating him as a nut when he had a large anti-war following.

I still remember Tim Russert asking Kucinich, who finally got time for a question in a debate, if he had really seen a UFO. What kind of garbage is that? Trying to discredit someone simply because you disagree with him?

Kucinich, and I were both right to oppose the war in Iraq, and for the record, I have seen a UFO. It is simply an object moving in the sky that cannot be identified. The one I saw was huge and disappeared in a suddenly cloud as jets converged on it over the AZ desert and that it had looked like a Flying Saucer stereotype, does not mean it was from outer space, just something I could not id, as could neither of the two friends who saw it with me.

Now, we have Bernie, right on the economy and the need to distribute not just wealth but power.

As usual, I am disgusted with the press.
+10 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-17 05:36
My message to the Times

Please unsubscribe me from your service.

The recent handling (Boardman writes: "The front page story is about such issues as 'work force anxieties,' 'shrinking middle class,' 'stagnant wages,' and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders." from RSN) demonstrates that editorial/news substance of your 'enterprise' has devolved to little more than plutocratic propaganda ... not worth reading.
+6 # dsepeczi 2015-07-17 07:39
Quoting Bruce Gruber:
My message to the Times

Please unsubscribe me from your service.

The recent handling (Boardman writes: "The front page story is about such issues as 'work force anxieties,' 'shrinking middle class,' 'stagnant wages,' and a growing income gap at pre-Depression levels. The candidate who has been raising these issues longer and louder than any others is Bernie Sanders. Yet the New York Times story about these issues does not even mention Bernie Sanders." from RSN) demonstrates that editorial/news substance of your 'enterprise' has devolved to little more than plutocratic propaganda ... not worth reading.

Very nice ! If I was subscribed to that rag, I'd do the same thing. For anyone else considering dropping their subscriptions, you set a great example of how to do it by making sure the NYT fully understands why they lost you as a subscriber.
+7 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-17 09:35
Is there a mechanism within RSN to create a Progressive Primary Presidential Preference Poll ... on Facebook or Twitter (social media)? Something that identified age, State, education, and a hierarchy of issue/policy ranking? ... where those 300,000 or more 'visitors' to the site can offer insight.

Some sort of 'artificial intelligence' poll design could identify Trolls from comment history and, possibly, Up the Ante of support for this positive search for truth and understanding from among the many who stop and think here.

I'd also like to see a list of questions developed for the Democratic Debates with specific recommendations for ALL candidates and specific questions for EACH candidate. The 'media' questions may not address issues the way we would find enlightening.
+6 # ChrisCurrie 2015-07-17 11:39
It is little wonder why the New York Time's subscriber list has been dwindling.
+6 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-17 13:15

From the Des Moines KCCI News within the hour:
"DES MOINES, Iowa —Two Democrats who hold statewide office are endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

Attorney General Tom Miller and Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald released statements Friday endorsing Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Their support came hours before the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame dinner in Cedar Rapids, which marks the first event where all the Democratic presidential candidates will join in Iowa.

In their statements supporting Clinton, Miller and Fitzgerald lauded her economic plans, which they say would benefit American workers."

Obviously the establishment doesn't need to hear from Democrats or candidates to know what they are supposed to do ... genuflect and bow to the money!

Sounds like they got their instructions screwed up and announced their scripts before they heard the actual presentation from Hillary. The propposals for "study" include employers and workers reaching agreement on making work and income 'things' "better" ... hardly a PLAN!

Bernie KNOWS, Bernie SPEAKS, Bernie LEADS! Everything from everyboby else is pablum, generalities or just plain B.S. Sorry, Hillary, your concern and growing awareness are a poor second ... and do't look down, but you forgot to tie your left shoe.
+1 # Bruce Gruber 2015-07-18 13:06
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

There is little doubt that the hobgoblins - vampires and walking dead alike - stagger darkly through our landscape of gloom and fear, purveyors of death, sickness and the plague of enforced poverty called austerity. They are easily recognize, even when when camouflaged, by their elephant logo.

However, we also have a 'lesser' hobgoblin of compromised lethargy within our Democratic Party. Focused on incremental baby steps of change, these political expediency specialists tack smoothly against sweet breezes of cash and suave, offering 'visions' and 'interest' in change that hypnotizes and promises with little of plan or mettle by which to solidify or accomplish real and specific plans.
+9 # Vegan_Girl 2015-07-17 14:46
Anyone who calls Hillary a liberal or a progressive has zero credibility.

Imagine all the Occupy activists and social justice groups becoming energized again and organize for Bernie. They will! The mainstream media is no longer as important as it used to be. We have the votes and now we also have social media.

Go Bernie!
+4 # walt 2015-07-18 08:04
No surprise here. The NYT is "corporately-ow ned media."

Bernie is a threat to their control.
+4 # DerHermanator 2015-07-18 15:20
Just cancelled my subscription to the New York Times and feeling great, thank YOU very much.
+2 # davehaze 2015-07-19 10:12
NPR Weekend Edition covered the five Democratic contenders running for president appearing together in Iowa only mentioning Clinton and quoting Clinton about Trump's hair.
No mentioneed of issues, of difererances.

A massive disgrace of journalism.

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.