• 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

S

Surrealistik

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
12,140
Reaction score
8,048
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQ1syv5VH0

Interesting development: The New York Times wrote a positive story about Bernie Sanders… for a few hours until they edited it into a hatchet job. Why did this happen? Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"The New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan took her paper to task Thursday after a piece about Democratic presidential candidateBernie Sanders was updated to add negative paragraphs for seemingly no reason at all.

The original Times article “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors,” was a generally positive piece about how Sanders managed to score legislative victories in Congress despite being an independent. But after publication, the following two paragraphs were added without any indication from the Timesthat the piece had been updated.”*

Read more here: NY Times Public Editor Chastises Paper for Stealth-Editing Bernie Sanders Piece | Mediaite
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

My goodness. Political bias in the media? Who would have thought?
 
The DNC has spoken, the media is getting in line behind Hillary. It is now her Presidency to lose.
 
fmw said:
My goodness. Political bias in the media? Who would have thought?
Click to expand...

There is a notable difference between bias and propaganda; I very much feel NYT has crossed this line on several occasions, this being one of them.
 
Surrealistik said:
There is a notable difference between bias and propaganda; I very much feel NYT has crossed this line on several occasions, this being one of them.
Click to expand...

There are examples of the media crossing the line every day. Yes there is difference between bias and propaganda. Propaganda requires lying If they lied then that's propaganda.
 
fmw said:
My goodness. Political bias in the media? Who would have thought?
Click to expand...

...

This isn't just a political bias, it is a personal one.

If you have trouble with the distinction, i suggest finding a dictionary.
 
Surrealistik said:
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...

The piece needed some balance. It went from an article fawning over Sanders' legislative smoke and mirrors to one pointing out a simple truth; that those parlor tricks won't deliver anything he's been campaigning on.
 
Napoleon said:
The piece needed some balance. It went from an article fawning over Sanders' legislative smoke and mirrors to one pointing out a simple truth; that those parlor tricks won't deliver anything he's been campaigning on.
Click to expand...

Uh, legislative smoke and mirrors? You do understand that he's one of the most successful and productive senators in modern history in terms of passing legislation, with a record that handily dwarfs Clinton's own, right?

And obviously experience in the Senate won't help a Dem president if he doesn't have control of the House and Senate. That goes just as much for Clinton as it does Sanders, the former of whom is even more despised by the GOP.

The problem with NYT's actions here was a combination of a tone shift to something completely toxic and dismissive (not neutral) to the point where their own editors acknowledged its egregious bias, and the utter lack of any notification or record of the change; there is exactly nothing balanced about that hatchet job. Further, there has _never_ been an equivalent or comparable change with respect to any pro-Clinton articles. I assume you'd be the sort to genuinely assert in the face of all countervailing evidence that Fox News is indeed fair and balanced were you a conservative.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
...

This isn't just a political bias, it is a personal one.

If you have trouble with the distinction, i suggest finding a dictionary.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rude remark.
 
Surrealistik said:
Uh, legislative smoke and mirrors? You do understand that he's one of the most successful and productive senators in modern history in terms of passing legislation, with a record that handily dwarfs Clinton's own, right?

And obviously experience in the Senate won't help a Dem president if he doesn't have control of the House and Senate. That goes just as much for Clinton as it does Sanders, the former of whom is even more despised by the GOP.

The problem with NYT's actions here was a combination of a tone shift to something completely toxic and dismissive (not neutral) to the point where their own editors acknowledged its egregious bias, and the utter lack of any notification or record of the change; there is exactly nothing balanced about that hatchet job. Further, there has _never_ been an equivalent or comparable change with respect to any pro-Clinton articles. I assume you'd be the sort to genuinely assert in the face of all countervailing evidence that Fox News is indeed fair and balanced were you a conservative.
Click to expand...

What is Clinton's record exactly?
 
American said:
What is Clinton's record exactly?
Click to expand...

Referring to her record of passing legislation specifically. You can check it out here:

Bernie: https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q={%22search%22%3A[%22Bernard+Sanders%22]}&resultIndex=1

Hillary: https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?q={%22search%22%3A[%22Hillary+Clinton%22]}&resultIndex=1

Refine search with "Passed Both Chambers".
 
fmw said:
There are examples of the media crossing the line every day. Yes there is difference between bias and propaganda. Propaganda requires lying If they lied then that's propaganda.
Click to expand...

I do not think propaganda actually requires someone to lie. For example if the media wanted to portray 2nd amendment advocates as conspiracy loons then they could interview every Alex Jones loon out there anytime they interviewed someone about guns.Kind of like Piers Morgan used to do when interviewing Alex Jones.

Propaganda | Define Propaganda at Dictionary.com
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

4. Roman Catholic Church.
  • a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
  • a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.


5. Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.
 
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...

All thoughtful and intelligent news and media sources should be biased against Sanders.
 
Renae said:
All thoughtful and intelligent news and media sources should be biased against Sanders.
Click to expand...

"Willful propaganda is right so long as it agrees with my world view."

Good to know where you stand. People like you are as much an enemy to free society as radical Islam; perhaps more so as this mode of thought can toxify discourse and the trajectory of society largely unmolested.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
"Willful propaganda is right so long as it agrees with my world view."

Good to know where you stand. People like you are as much an enemy to free society as radical Islam; perhaps more so as this mode of thought can toxify discourse and the trajectory of society largely unmolested.
Click to expand...

Sanders and his supporters want to deny my liberty, my freedoms and take from me. I will fight them at every turn.
 
Renae said:
Sanders and his supporters want to deny my liberty, my freedoms and take from me. I will fight them at every turn.
Click to expand...

Unless your income is at the very highest echelons of society that argument doesn't even begin to make sense, and even then it still doesn't compute because you would be subject to an increment of taxes, not a deprivation of liberty.
 
Surrealistik said:
"Willful propaganda is right so long as it agrees with my world view."

Good to know where you stand. People like you are as much an enemy to free society as radical Islam; perhaps more so as this mode of thought can toxify discourse and the trajectory of society largely unmolested.
Click to expand...

What is false or misleading about the added paragraph? Why should Bernie's proposals not be subject to the scrutiny that was missing from the original piece?

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.
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
What is false or misleading about the added paragraph? Why should Bernie's proposals not be subject to the scrutiny that was missing from the original piece?
Click to expand...

Because I've already answered this (also the video goes into this in further detail; I recommend actually giving it a watch):

Surrealistik said:
The problem with NYT's actions here was a combination of a tone shift to something completely toxic and dismissive (not neutral) to the point where their own editors acknowledged its egregious bias, and the utter lack of any notification or record of the change; there is exactly nothing balanced about that hatchet job. Further, there has _never_ been an equivalent or comparable change with respect to any pro-Clinton articles. I assume you'd be the sort to genuinely assert in the face of all countervailing evidence that Fox News is indeed fair and balanced were you a conservative.
Click to expand...
 
Surrealistik said:
Because I've already answered this (also the video goes into this in further detail; I recommend actually giving it a watch):
Click to expand...

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.
 
Surrealistik said:
Unless your income is at the very highest echelons of society that argument doesn't even begin to make sense, and even then it still doesn't compute because you would be subject to an increment of taxes, not a deprivation of liberty.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Bull****.

You want to live tax free ? Go try your luck in Antartica.
 
iguanaman said:
What is false or misleading about the added paragraph? Why should Bernie's proposals not be subject to the scrutiny that was missing from the original piece?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom