The one common to all of the mainstream corporate publishers and owners, whatever their partisan leanings, being “don’t upset the applecart of neoliberal globalism lest the socialists come for our profits”. That’s also how someone with Ember’s background is not only instantly deemed a “good fit” for the corporate culture at hiring time but is also allowed to get away with shoddy journalism for months after several respected outsiders have taken note of it.
Certainly the latter, and in a way that the comfortable are spared the indignity of feeling they come to the paper to be comforted. Although a good portion of the readership would prefer to avoid discussing that stylistic feat, it is in fact one of the metiers of the NYT.
I obviously have less certainty than others in this thread as to what those opinions are, and think an answer to @RioRico’s question gives more insight into those opinions than faith-based insistence.
The relentlessly negative coverage of Sanders from the NY Times has been an amazing spectacle. Who would’ve thought the Times would prove Trump right in his accusations of “fake news.”
It’s always useful to remind oneself that no one elected the NY Times into existence.
My assumption is that the Sulzberger family, which owns the Times, has “made a decision” about Sanders. And the editors have to toe the line – responsible journalism be damned.
“Ember’s negative reporting on Sanders might be the result of her deep connections to the finance world”
Usual conspiracy theory.
They can’t see that not all people fall in love with Sanders. If they don’t like him, it must be because they are all shill paid by big corporation who try to steal our democracy!! Hahaha, the extrem left is at it again…
No problem if she doesn’t like Saunders, but not doing honest disclosure of her sources is something different.
Who owns the NYT? Wikipedia says that Mexican phone monopolist Carlos Slim is the largest stockholder but only controls 1/3 of the board. The other owners are Sulzberger descendants.
Does the Times seem to serve Sr. Slim’s interests?
This article is a lot less about ‘honest disclosure of her sources’ than not putting on the rhetorical spin and emphasis that the author prefers.
For example:
Tracy Sefl, whom Ember calls “a veteran Democratic strategist” – but Ember doesn’t mention that Sefl was a “surrogate and senior advisor for Hillary Clinton” who worked extensively with The Drudge Report on Clinton’s behalf, and was “a hired gun at a Republican-led firm Navigators Global.”
What about Sefl’s work (after her involvement in NG) for Walmart Watch which was investigating Walmart’s bad labour practices? What about the fact that she’s on the board of directors at RAINN? What about the fact that she was trying to switch Drudge from the right in 2007 an effort that ultimately failed (given that Drudge was anti-Hillary for 2008)? What about the fact her involvement with Hillary’s campaign ended in 2015?
I mean if I wanted to treat the author of this similarly, I’d call her “a comedian who has appeared on Fox News Radio.”
PS: Sefl supports Warren.
The democratic party. DUH
there i fixed it for ya
No one’s going to mention NBC’s Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan), so I will:
Oh yeah, that committee hearing:
Finally, a quick reminder of how things actually work:
The funny thing is, going back and looking at the Ember articles in the NYT that Halper thinks are so unfair to Bernie, I think they’re actually pretty positive. For example, the first one ends,
Throughout his political career, he has spoken of revolution, espousing a sympathy for the working class and the poor, who he argues are suffering at the hands of profit-seeking corporations and the rich and powerful who lead them.
“This is a debate that the American people have got to have,” he said in the pre-speech interview. “What are we entitled to as human beings?”
That’s powerful stuff.
I think that Halper’s characterisations of Ember’s articles are more explicitly reflective of Halper’s prejudices than Ember’s coverage is of her own background.
This in no way excuses using biased sources where you suppress the possible source of the bias, and the NYT’s obsession with “balancing” every perspective with an opposing one can get pretty ridiculous, but I think their coverage of Bernie so far this cycle will only look unfair to someone who is in the tank for Sanders. Of the four current frontrunners, it has probably been the least harsh on him.
Another good piece in FAIR on where the corporate media is at:
Warning to Progressive Dems: You’re Leaving Corporate Media’s Comfort Zone
It covers the usual suspects, but worry not, the Times is well represented with two corporate-water-carrying pieces.
You say you know tons about journalism, but you seem to have forgotten the basic journalist’s understanding that very few readers make it to the end of an article (so if you want to bury anything, put it there).
“I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”
–W.Rogers
The article begins:
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont offered a vigorous defense of the democratic socialism that has defined his five decades in political life on Wednesday, while tying his presidential campaign to the legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr.
Not much to argue with there either. The comparison with FDR – which is something the Sanders camp is rightly trying to push – is repeated several times in the article. I think it is a good one for Bernie from beginning to end; the lede isn’t buried.
Who could forget? But remember, it was an Opinion piece.
Lemme guess, Tom Friedman?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
