Some snippets to whet your appetite: --------------------snip The *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 <https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss> .
"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 <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/four-amendments-a-funeral-20050825>," 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. [...] 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 <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/us/politics/bernie-sanders-doesnt-kiss-babies-that-a-problem.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0>), the Steinhauer piece was actually sort of flattering. Sanders himself linked to the article <http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/bernie-sanders-scored-victories-for-years-via-legislative-side-doors>. 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 <https://medium.com/@brokenravioli/proof-that-the-new-york-times-isn-t-feeling-the-bern-c74e1109cdf6#.7vr0tvspx>"), 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 <https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss> to: Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=0> 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. On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Carrol Cox <cb...@ilstu.edu> wrote: > > Even if you don't care about Bernie Sanders, this is a nice case study of > the NYT "political editing process." > > Why do you think so? I'm not going to the trouble of accessing the NYT > without more reason than you give here. > > I'm getting seriously sick and tired of this endless stream of naked or > near naked links from you & Lou. This sort of (non)-post seems like a > deliberate attempt to forestall actual conversation on the mail list. > > Carrol > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
