Hating on Sanders by the New York Times is Becoming a Habit

By | 6/08/2016 3 comments
New York Times Biased Against Sanders

A front page story in the New York Times on Wednesday that describes itself as “news analysis” is in reality one of the most biased, opinion-packed pieces of political smear you’re likely to find anywhere.

The Charlie Musgrove Report recently published an article that called out the Times for another hit piece on Senator Bernie Sanders. That takedown – largely cobbled together by a former sports columnist – was so egregious in its lack of objectivity and its bald-faced prejudice that we could only assume it was an aberration from a hallowed publication that many consider a newspaper of record.

We were mistaken – and this one’s worse.

This latest assault on professional journalism is entitled “Hillary Clinton Made History, but Bernie Sanders Stubbornly Ignored It.” From that title alone the use of the adverb “stubbornly” tips us off that there’s something amiss here. But there’s much, much worse to come.

The “news analysis” is written by the Time’s political reporter (their description, not ours) Michael Barbaro, formerly of The Washington Post (which may tell you all you need to know – but more on him later) and Yamiche Alcindor, a former USA Today reporter who, perhaps not coincidentally, was the co-author of the above-mentioned previous hit job on Sanders.

It begins: “Revolutions rarely give way to gracious expressions of defeat. And so, despite the crushing California results that rolled in for him on Tuesday night, despite the insurmountable delegate math and the growing pleas that he end his quest for the White House, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage in Santa Monica and basked, bragged and vowed to fight on.”

Parse those words and you’ll see that right off the bat the implication is that Sanders is both ungracious and a braggart. A shared celebration of the historic, groundbreaking achievements of the campaign is swiftly derided as undignified boasting.

“In a speech of striking stubbornness [that word again], he ignored the history-making achievement of his Democratic rival,” it continues. “Mr. Sanders waited until 15 minutes into his speech to utter Mrs. Clinton’s name. He referred, almost in passing, to a telephone conversation in which he had congratulated her on her victories. At that, the crowd of more than 3,000 inside an aging airport hangar booed loudly. Mr. Sanders did little to discourage them.”

Why on earth should it matter how long it took before Sanders mentioned Clinton by name? He was under no obligation to mention her at all – he was addressing his supporters, not hers. As to the booing from the crowd, to say that “Sanders did little to discourage them” clearly suggests that he did do something – just not enough to satisfy the apparently Clinton-doting writers of the article.

There’s more: “At almost every turn, he was grudging toward Mrs. Clinton, passing up a chance to issue the kind of lengthy salute that many, in and out of the Democratic Party, had expected and craved.”

No – what Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC and the rest of the party establishment (and the writers of the article, apparently) “craved” was a concession speech by Sanders that heaped praise on the candidate that they’d engineered from the very beginning of the campaign to be the nominee.

There follows a brief and seemingly arbitrary quote from David Gergen, senior political analyst for CNN, who the writers claim is “worried that Mr. Sanders was becoming ‘a grumpy old man.’ ”

It continues: “This would be the time, under normal circumstances, for a primary rival to acknowledge insurmountable odds, salute a prevailing opponent and begin the work of stitching together a divided political party.” That, in case you’re confused, was written by the Times’ writers, not the Clinton campaign, who then go on to point out that Clinton had done just that 8 years ago.

And then: “On Tuesday, she was effusive in her praise of Mr. Sanders and in her outreach to his supporters, mentioning him by name three times in her victory address in Brooklyn.” However, that was not an example of Clinton being gracious, merely an attempt to pander to his supporters – and not for some principled intention of healing the party, either, but because she flat out needs them in order to achieve her personal political ambitions.

And finally this: “But Mr. Sanders, who calls himself a revolutionary, is openly skeptical of the traditions and expectations that govern the party whose nomination he covets. Throughout his campaign, he has regarded the Democratic Party itself with suspicion and distrust.” And that’s probably because throughout his campaign the Democratic Party has done everything it could to diminish and sideline his candidacy via those very same traditions and expectations.

It’s also worth pointing out that one of the writers of the article – Michael Barbaro – has been called out before for his biased reporting. Mediaite, the online news aggregator for the media industry, posted a story on him last summer entitled “NY Times ‘Political Reporter’ Needs to Decide Between Opinion and Hard News Coverage.”

Clearly, Mr. Barbaro has yet to make that call.

The upshot:

Those who decry bias in the media are often dismissed as partisan zealots who can’t stomach hard facts that run counter to their personal beliefs. But in the case of the New York Times, with “reporters” like Michael Barbaro and Jonathan Mahler on its staff, it’s becoming increasingly clear that their editorial board is allowing the paper to abandon journalistic standards and objectivity in favor of whatever political agenda their writers wish to push.

As a result, it’s looking much less like a newspaper of record than it is a newspaper in decline.

Newer Post Older Post Home


  1. They want Bernie supporters to support a candidate that is the worst candidate in Democratic Party history that supports Wall Street over main street, corporations over people, enriching the military complex with more wars, trade policies that will devastate the middle class and diminish US sovereignty, and interventionist policies that remove democratically elected leaders in other nations to benefit US international businesses? Not going to happen. Bernie supporters support policies that are for the betterment of the huge majority within societies, not just the wealthy. Bernie supporters do not want to increase human suffering for the benefit of business profits that enrich the wealthy. Bernie supporters do not want more wars that create more human suffering to enrich the military complex. Bernie supporters do not want Hillary and her values in an office where I want my children and grandchildren to look up to as an example of the leadership that we desire as Americans. No, never Hillary. #BernieOrBust #NotMeUs #NeverHillary #DropOutHillary

  2. You call yourself journalists? Hack job after hack job from your rag. You should tell the real story about what a lying bitch Clinton is and how she and the DNC pulled every dirty trick in the book and then some to steal the election, including but not limited to: Closing polling places where Bernie's supporters would likely be voting. In Puerto Rico alone about 2/3 of them were closed and there were thugs threatening people who voted for Sanders. Removing people without telling them until they went to vote, not having registered voters names listed, having machines that are not working, telling thousands and thousands that they have to vote on a provisional ballot which is NOT counted. In many states even dead people voted. Take California, People who were voting for Bernie were constantly given the worthless provisional ballots instead of crossover ballots and being told that there were no crossover ballots. The estimate is that between 50% and 90% of the independent voters votes were stolen boy that alone. So you guys can shit in your hats and pull it over your ears, you stink and you are not journalists, just hacks spewing shit!

  3. I'm a little late to the blog, but...reading pieces like this make me so ashamed of this country and this "democratically-elected" (cough, cough) government of ours! Along with corporations and the super-wealthy, the establishment media lead us (blindfolded) right down the pathway they wish for us to take!