might be the first time I’ve ever seen someone claiming the NYT is bias FOR Sanders
meanwhile,
2 Likes
I’m curious. Did you bother to read the article before reposting that stuff? If you did, do you understand that you’re misrepresenting it? Genuinely interested in the answers.
To save others the trouble, here’s the first few paragraphs:
DES MOINES — Bernie Sanders examined the butter cow. He power-walked by the Ferris wheel. He gobbled a corn dog.
He spoke to almost no one.
Most presidential candidates use the 10-day Iowa State Fair to showcase their retail campaigning skills, because it is one of the best opportunities to meet a wide cross-section of voters before the caucuses in February. Mr. Sanders’s approach to the event on Sunday — stride briskly, wave occasionally, converse infrequently — underscored how he has grounded his campaign in championing ideas rather than establishing human connections.
His lectern-pounding, impersonal campaign style served him well during his first presidential run, especially here in Iowa, where his near-victory in the caucuses against Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State, transformed him into a threat for the Democratic nomination.
In other words, the article is saying that he didn’t really embrace stopping and talking to individual voters. It’s not saying he didn’t draw a crowd for his speech.
2 Likes
I don’t think nonfiction was trying to say that “spoke to almost no one” meant the crowd was small, just that the NYT piece was negative and it was. Lol at “gobbled” and “lecturn pounding” and lol at that being the headline. And I wouldn’t be shocked at all if that was totally FOS.
1 Like
The article is juxtaposed twice with evidence of him speaking to a large crowd, it’s pretty clear what is implied.
1 Like
I suppose, but if the tweet is misleading like a misleading headline, well, that’s their point. The headlines are extremely important, come from management, and no one takes responsibility for them.
1 Like
The headline is “Why Bernie Sanders Stood Out at the Iowa State Fair” which I think is reasonable. The Twitter version has the clickbaitishness jacked up a bit, but it also has an (also in my view fair) explanation in the body of the tweet.
I agree that the NYT is anti-Bernie in general, btw, and even that this is a pretty negatively-slanted take, but I don’t think it’s inaccurate or unfair.
How could the headline and picture in the tweet there have been worse without being complete lies?
Can’t you just see the anti-Bernie people all nodding their heads? - yeah, what an angry old man, gobbling corn dogs, talking to no one, pounding on lecturns.
1 Like
The issue is that it matters who wins Iowa when deciding how it important it is. Obama’s Iowa win was huge because it’s demographically not a great state for him and he still won. Sanders basically tying Clinton wasn’t that big of a deal because he represents white rural voters in the senate already. If Harris wins Iowa she becomes pretty big front runner. Buttigieg not so much.
1 Like
I’m not a Bernie supporter as you’re all aware, but I’ll happily support anybody bashing the NYT. Truly a trash newspaper.
mea culpa.
However, look down thread about how the NYT skews its reporting about Bernie. can you admit that it might be doing the same about other candidates as well?
Yeah the NYT is terrible, obviously, and their horse race coverage often seems biased.
Of course they do. What the NYT and WaPo do is they are ok with candidates who have a pretty narrow range of policy, background and the way they present themselves and they find ways to ridicule everyone else. I don’t know if Mayor Pete passes muster for them or not. The way he acts and his education certainly do, but maybe they think he’s too young and inexperienced to be taken seriously at this point.
And I don’t mean to suggest it’s a conspiracy, it’s just the way they typically act and probably anyone who doesn’t follow suit is resistant to getting the side-eye from their coworkers and bosses.
They went so far as to do it to HRC and their coverage of Trump has been waaaaay too favorable. I honestly can’t figure out what their editorial policy is from induction. It just seems like a mangled mess.
Krugman is about the only person I see writing for NYT that pretty much says what needs to be said.
Keeping the filibuster seems kind of dumb when Republicans can repeal Obamacare with 50 votes
Imagine hating someone as much as Nate hates Bernie
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1161248476086374400
2 Likes
that article in other words Bernie is an introvert, the HORROR
Yeah the filibuster has to go. We all have to be super prepared to climb up every single Democratic Senators ass as soon as the election is over making sure they understand that we’ll hold them personally responsible if the filibuster sticks around and keeps this political meta going. And let’s be really clear ‘hold them personally responsible’ means aggressively advocating (I mean spending money and time) for their next primary challenger almost no matter who that is.
Seriously if they don’t get rid of the filibuster all these both sides are equally bad bullshit people will actually be right. There comes a point where you start to suspect collusion. Collusion is the only valid reason the Dems would keep the filibuster after taking the Senate in 2020.
1 Like
Lol. Nate still mad Bernie won states he had 99pct HRC up until the day before last time and because he’s not even the best Nate at interpreting polls.
He has to result to “hints of a sense” about things to come up with reasons to bash him because he has nothing concrete to point to.
Someone in the responses calls him out for not saying anything about HRC last time when her campaign floated the slogan “it’s her turn”.