• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Times Edits Pro-Bernie Article Into Hit Piece

Renae said:
Where in did I say I wanted to be "Tax free". I have not.
Click to expand...

You were claiming that taxes take your liberties.

Apparently, you are completely oblivious to the role those taxes play in securing your liberties.
 
Absentglare said:
You were claiming that taxes take your liberties.

Apparently, you are completely oblivious to the role those taxes play in securing your liberties.
Click to expand...
No, you made that fail jump of logic. I said Socialist like Sanders and his merry band of followers would deny me liberties in their pursuit of a false future. Do get it right.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, if the NYT had simply said, "The article has been edited in response to complaints by the HRC campaign. In particular, the Clinton campaign submitted, and we inserted, two short paragraphs as a rebuttal to the unfortunately positive coverage of Mr. Sanders. We apologize to our readers and Mrs. Clinton for this lapse in judgment." it'd have been fine.
Click to expand...

So the added paragraph totally negates the positive aspects of the piece because it dares to add a dose of balance to the subject. I guess it was not so good for Sanders after all. I thought Sanders supporters already knew what is being said about him by the opposition. Apparently they did not.
 
Renae said:
Socialist (democratic or otherwise) always tax the ever loving **** out of all but the lowest of income earners. They want to deny my liberties, take away my freedoms all for the goal of false hope through wealth confiscation and redistribution.
Click to expand...

Actually look at Bernie's platform and tax proposals before making blanket and fallacious statements that don't actually apply to him or his platform.


iguanaman said:
So after reading that paragraph you lost your interest in Sanders? Or was it something you have already heard before? Don't you think Sander's opponents would use the same arguments and already have? Being so thin-skinned is not very indicative of a strong campaign and the NYT's would have been guilty of favoritism if they did not mention the other side of the story. Which is probably the reason for the added material.
Click to expand...

The NYT routinely publishes one sided pro-Clinton stories and has actually endorsed her; they're plenty guilty of favouritism alright, but not of Bernie. This isn't about thin skin so much as drawing attention to and recognizing egregious bias and at best de facto propaganda.

Second, no, again, the tone of the changes and the overall article were not neutral or striving for balance; it was a dismissive marginalization of Bernie's record, which their editors have effectively admitted. The scope of the changes were also not limited to a singular paragraph; watch the video and read the related article.
 
Surrealistik said:
Actually look at Bernie's platform and tax proposals before making blanket and fallacious statements that don't actually apply to him or his platform.




The NYT routinely publishes one sided pro-Clinton stories and has actually endorsed her; they're plenty guilty of favouritism alright, but not of Bernie. This isn't about thin skin so much as drawing attention to and recognizing egregious bias and at best de facto propaganda.

Second, no, again, the tone of the changes and the overall article were not neutral or striving for balance; it was a dismissive marginalization of Bernie's record, which their editors have effectively admitted. The scope of the changes were also not limited to a singular paragraph; watch the video and read the related article.
Click to expand...

I have, his spending is way more than his taxing "the rich" will ever cover, and like ALL progressive Socialist programs the middle class takes the brunt of the taxation.
 
Renae said:
I have, his spending is way more than his taxing "the rich" will ever cover, and like ALL progressive Socialist programs the middle class takes the brunt of the taxation.
Click to expand...

No, they do not. For example, the proposed tax on Wall Street speculation: doesn't touch the poor or middle class yet raises lots of money while simultaneously helping cooldown excess speculation which can and has lead to instability in financial markets (the HFT actuated Flash Crash).
 
Surrealistik said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQ1syv5VH0



Another unmistakable instance of mainstream media bias against Bernie from a nakedly pro-Hillary publication for those who are still in denial or are otherwise willfully ignorant/blind to it.

It's almost incredible how the once vaunted NYT has become little more than a DNC/establishment propaganda rag.
Click to expand...

I think you will find the NY Times, Washington Post, and the LA Times pretty much spew the CIA Mass Media narrative. They seem to be bought and paid for or represent an interest other than the average citizen. The alternative Power Structure manifesting its' mainstream control, don't ya' know?
 
Surrealistik said:
No, they do not. For example, the proposed tax on Wall Street speculation: doesn't touch the poor or middle class yet raises lots of money while simultaneously helping cooldown excess speculation which can and has lead to instability in financial markets (the HFT actuated Flash Crash).
Click to expand...

Why Bernie Sanders Has to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class | Foundation for Economic Education

Bernie Sanders Open to Middle Class Tax Hike for Healthcare

Clinton hits Sanders on middle class tax hikes - POLITICO

What Sanders' Wall Street Tax Means For The Middle Class | The Daily Caller
 
Renae said:
Why Bernie Sanders Has to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class | Foundation for Economic Education

Bernie Sanders Open to Middle Class Tax Hike for Healthcare

Clinton hits Sanders on middle class tax hikes - POLITICO

What Sanders' Wall Street Tax Means For The Middle Class | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

Yep. There is the possibility of a minor increase of income taxation on income tiers that could be considered middle class (I would dispute the extent of the increase cited in the above sources though). The upside though is that the effective return in social services would easily and handily outweigh that added cost (just compare the increase vs the savings in health care premiums and deductibles for example). In no event though could the middle class be considered taking the 'brunt' of taxation.

As for the Daily Caller (itself a partisan publication), it cites Cato and IBT, neither of which have provided a robust, peer reviewed analysis and are blatantly partisan organizations. Second, their analysis ignores the fact that the middle class impact would be tiny given that they have much less invested in capital markets than the rich, and the fact that those investments have relatively minute volumes. In all, not a very compelling case for a net averse impact on the middle class in light of the benefits yielded from such a tax. To their credit, they at least acknowledge that such a tax would help reduce volatility.
 
" In January, one of the world’s richest men, Carlos Slim, doubled his stake in the New York Times, which allowed him to control an unprecedented 16.8% of the company. Slim also turns out to have quite the close relationship with the Clintons, according to the Washington Free Beacon:


“Not only has Slim contributed between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation, but his company Telmex has contributed an additional grant between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 through its foundation. Slim has also pledged $100 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a collaboration between the Clinton Foundation and Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra.”

Slim doesn’t appear to be troubled by any conflict of interest, as his history with the Clinton’s doesn’t stop there. The Clinton Foundation reports Hillary was once paid between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech to Slim’s Telmex Foundation."

Connect the Dots: More Links Discovered Between Hillary Clinton and The New York Times
 
iguanaman said:
So the added paragraph totally negates the positive aspects of the piece because it dares to add a dose of balance to the subject. I guess it was not so good for Sanders after all. I thought Sanders supporters already knew what is being said about him by the opposition. Apparently they did not.
Click to expand...

Good gosh, it's BS for the NYT after the article was researched, written, edited and approved, and published to insert a bunch of OPINION language that by any account could have been written by an HRC campaign staffer. If you don't see the problem, fine, but even the NYT's own public editor called it out as obvious BS under the circumstances.

And it wasn't just the added paragraphs - they made several edits, including to the headline, every one of them making Sanders look worse - and didn't bother to even note that the original article had been changed, and not by the reporter, but by her boss, who hopefully is getting good money for his side gig as an HRC PR hack embedded at the NYT.

And the "Sanders...being said about him by the opposition" is about right. But since when is the role of a non-editorial piece in the NYT to serve as opposition to a political candidate? As I said, it would have been fine if the article had noted it was edited to insert a response by the HRC campaign! :roll:
 
JasperL said:
Good gosh, it's BS for the NYT after the article was researched, written, edited and approved, and published to insert a bunch of OPINION language that by any account could have been written by an HRC campaign staffer. If you don't see the problem, fine, but even the NYT's own public editor called it out as obvious BS under the circumstances.

And it wasn't just the added paragraphs - they made several edits, including to the headline, every one of them making Sanders look worse - and didn't bother to even note that the original article had been changed, and not by the reporter, but by her boss, who hopefully is getting good money for his side gig as an HRC PR hack embedded at the NYT.

And the "Sanders...being said about him by the opposition" is about right. But since when is the role of a non-editorial piece in the NYT to serve as opposition to a political candidate? As I said, it would have been fine if the article had noted it was edited to insert a response by the HRC campaign! :roll:
Click to expand...

But wasn't the article a puff piece on Sanders accomplishments before the edit? Is that the role a newspaper should take in election year? Or should it be careful to give both sides? I do understand why you would like the original article to stand as it appeared to favor Sanders without any reservations but given the Times endorsement of Hillary I don 't see what is surprising about the edit . You don't think they changed their minds about Sanders do you?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
But wasn't the article a puff piece on Sanders accomplishments before the edit? Is that the role a newspaper should take in election year? Or should it be careful to give both sides? I do understand why you would like the original article to stand as it appeared to favor Sanders without any reservations.
Click to expand...

It was a factual account of the things Sanders did; as I've repeatedly stated what they did to the article afterword was in no way even handed or fair. Further, NYT's pro-Hillary bias is obvious and pronounced: again, they routinely run pro-Clinton, and Bernie marginalizing stories while the paper outright endorses Clinton.
 
" As first lady, in 1996, Clinton trumpeted NAFTA as "proving its worth."

Two years later, she went to Davos, Switzerland, where she spoke at the World Economic Forum and thanked businesses for lobbying for the agreement. She also criticized them for not making a stronger push to give her husband fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals and limit congressional power to alter those deals."
A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade : It's All Politics : NPR

How NAFTA Helped The Mexican Billionaires' Club
How NAFTA Helped The Mexican Billionaires' Club : NPR

Hmm, the guy that holds the largest share of the New York Times, also benefitted exponentially from NAFTA, which Hillary Clinton supported, and now he's donating generously to Hillary while the NYT smears her opponent, Bernie Sanders.
But it's all a coincidence!
 
Surrealistik said:
It was a factual account of the things Sanders did; as I've repeatedly stated what they did to the article afterword was in no way even handed or fair. Further, NYT's pro-Hillary bias is obvious and pronounced: again, they routinely run pro-Clinton, and Bernie marginalizing stories while the paper outright endorses Clinton.
Click to expand...

The article was factual about past accomplishments but failed to give any comments on how it is germane to his current campaign for President. That was left up to the reader to extrapolate and that is what was changed with the edit. You can call it bias but it is not a lie.
 
iguanaman said:
But wasn't the article a puff piece on Sanders accomplishments before the edit? Is that the role a newspaper should take in election year? Or should it be careful to give both sides? I do understand why you would like the original article to stand as it appeared to favor Sanders without any reservations but given the Times endorsement of Hillary I don 't see what is surprising about the edit . You don't think they changed their minds about Sanders do you?
Click to expand...

"Both sides"..... I'm sick of that whole concept. It's nothing but an excuse for intellectual cowards in the press IMO. And no, there isn't a need for every article on politics to present "both sides" and pretend that "both sides" are equally legitimate, at fault, reasonable, possible, etc. The press has an obligation to be correct, and not one of the edits in that story was correcting any question of fact, what he's done or not done. It was edited to insert some higher up editor's OPINIONS.

And you keep making my point. No, it's not surprising that a paper in the tank for HRC couldn't let a somewhat positive article about Bernie stand, so they ran edits that could have been written, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they WERE written, by HRC's PR flack. So I'm not sure why you're denying the obvious - they are in the tank for Hillary and that's why they stealth edited that article on Bernie. I'm just suggesting that when they edited it that they note that fact somehow.

BTW you are disagreeing with the NYT on whether the NYT handled it correctly. They NYT says obviously not and when I just checked it's back to it's mostly original form.... :roll:
 
iguanaman said:
The article was factual about past accomplishments but failed to give any comments on how it is germane to his current campaign for President. That was left up to the reader to extrapolate and that is what was changed with the edit. You can call it bias but it is not a lie.
Click to expand...

LOL, we're pointing out the obvious bias, and no one is calling it a "lie." :roll:
 
Renae said:
All thoughtful and intelligent news and media sources should be biased against Sanders.
Click to expand...

I do not think you would be saying that if the media was doing that to your guy and they would use the same justifications that anti-Sanders propagandists use..
 
jamesrage said:
I do not think you would be saying that if the media was doing that to your guy and they would use the same justifications that anti-Sanders propagandists use..
Click to expand...

My guy isn't a POS Socialist trying to remake America into the failed model of government dependency that has Europe in it's death throes.
 
Renae said:
My guy isn't a POS Socialist trying to remake America into the failed model of government dependency that has Europe in it's death throes.
Click to expand...

Your signature mentions a anti-conservative propaganda site. So are they justified in spewing anti-conservative propaganda?
 
jamesrage said:
Your signature mentions a anti-conservative propaganda site. So are they justified in spewing anti-conservative propaganda?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are going on about aside trying to play "I'm not a hypocrite like you, whom are part of the problem!" silliness.

Seriously, what's your game James? Yeah, I mock Media Matters, I mock Sanders, I mock Trump and his supporters too.
 
Renae said:
I have no idea what you are going on about aside trying to play "I'm not a hypocrite like you, whom are part of the problem!" silliness.

Seriously, what's your game James? Yeah, I mock Media Matters, I mock Sanders, I mock Trump and his supporters too.
Click to expand...
So is media matter's anti-conservatie propaganda justified? Or is it only okay when your side does it?
 
jamesrage said:
So is media matter's anti-conservatie propaganda justified? Or is it only okay when your side does it?
Click to expand...

Got it, that's your game.

Have fun with that James, I'm not getting mired down in such stupidity.
 
Renae said:
Got it, that's your game.

Have fun with that James, I'm not getting mired down in such stupidity.
Click to expand...

What stupidity? You admitted that propaganda against socialists is okay in your book. But propaganda against conservatives is not in your book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom