2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTime publishes retraction on Bernie photos "Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders"
Photographer Says Disputed 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie SandersSam Frizell @Sam_Frizell 4:53 PM ET
The photographer who captured civil rights efforts at the University of Chicago fifty years ago says that recently discovered evidence proves that a young man in a disputed 1962 photo is, in fact, Bernie Sanders.
The 1962 photo of a man leading a sit-in against segregated housing at the university, which Sanders campaign had been promoting to illustrate his involvement in the civil rights movement, came under scrutiny after TIME published an article last year with accounts by four alumni who doubted Sanders was the young man in the photo.
Now, photographer Danny Lyontoday a well-known chronicler of the Civil Rights-eratold TIME he believes that newly-found photo contact sheets settle questions about the dramatic 1962 picture.
The contact sheets, reviewed by TIME, show pictures of the 21-year-old Sanders sitting on the floor wearing a rough, brown sweater and white shirt in what appears to be the same room as the disputed photo. The clothing Sanders is wearing on the floor in the recently discovered contact sheets looks to be the same as the clothing the young man is wearing in the photo in question.
Moreover, Lyon said ...
http://time.com/4220480/bernie-sanders-disputed-civil-rights-photo-1962/
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)to do so. Better late than never.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The whole disgusting scandal has Brock written all over it, there needs to be an investigation.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)they simply fucked up and didn't do any real research
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Back then photography was different and more expensive.
Qutzupalotl
(14,317 posts)Bet it's Brock...
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Not the mouthpiece of the corporate oligarchy, Henry FUCKING Luce , you piece of shit RAG!
Fuck you, Time!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That's what it's going to take, pushback on every lie.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)was when he called out the media and the crowd went wild.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)And plus SCALIA DIED. Smile yall!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)dancing ... Valentine's Eve party
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Who shoveled this shit to the media?
Who altered the Univ. of Chicago archive photo captions (removing Bernie's name)? (The Univ. of Chicago has since remedied this sabotage.)
It's not just WHY Time and other Corporate media snakes printed this damned lie without investigation. That's bad enough. But, given that there are interested parties in besmirching Sanders and falsely making him and his staff look like liars, I want to know if those interested parties perpetrated this "dirty trick" and shoveled it to their more-than-willing Corporate media snake pals.
I am suspicious of the Clinton campaign and the DNC on this matter because of the overt efforts to sabotage Sanders' campaign that they are already guilty of: limiting the number of debates to favor Clinton (i.e., limiting the barely known Sanders's exposure to the public, and, in my opinion, limiting Clinton's exposure in a debate forum, because she is not a good debater); bad scheduling of the debates for the same reasons; and the DNC recently lifting the cap on corporate cash that Obama had put it place, because the Clinton campaign spent too much of their current corporate cash in Iowa and New Hampshire with only a tie against a unknown insurgent candidate in Iowa and a huge loss in the very next primary, New Hampshire.
The Clinton campaign and its surrogates have also told several lies (for instance, that Sanders would repeal the ACA before putting another health care program in place). Even if you grant (and I don't) that using unfair advantages and telling lies about an opponent's views are par for the course in politics, Democrats should leave Rovian dirty tricks to the Rovians and their disgusting candidates. I don't want them in the Democratic Party, of which I have been a member, a voter and a supporter for 54 years.
So I want to know who did this. Was it just over-enthusiastic supporters--a forgivable thing if Clinton clamps down on them (as Sanders did to some offensive supporters of his)-- or did the Clinton campaign or its surrogates direct it, or orchestrate it, or have covert ties to it?
It smells like a dirty trick from the Clinton campaign because it seemed to be orchestrated with the John Lewis anti-Sanders statements (which he later clarified) and the Black Caucus PAC endorsement of Clinton--as if the lie about the photograph was timed to coincide with 'exposure' of Bernie as a 'liar' about his civil rights record. And this, of course, all occurred just prior to the SC primary, where there are many black voters.
IF the lie had stuck--if the photographer had not been located, or had not been able to prove beyond question that it is a photo of Bernie in the civil rights movement in Chicago--then it would have given Clinton an unfair and SPURIOUS advantage with black voters in SC.
I am not accusing the Clinton campaign of this. I'm saying that it looks bad and should be investigated. If they did it (and if it's provable), and if they don't apologize for it in a public way, and fire any paid campaign workers involved, and advise volunteers not to do such things, then I think that punitive action should be taken, beyond not voting for Clinton, perhaps even legal action, but certainly spreading the truth far and wide. I don't want ANY Democratic candidate to engage in Rovian dirty tricks, and I want them to know that they will be punished for it by the voters, and if slander or fraud is committed, they will be sued.
Free speech allows for a very wide latitude of statements. I would never object to someone saying they don't think Sanders' civil rights activism is important. I would strongly disagree but I wouldn't want to suppress that or any other opinion. But to alter photo captions and then tell lies to the public and to the media is not free speech; it is fraud.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... for what was done to Kerry many years back, which set the ground work for that sort of action being put in place again because it wasn't punished then either.
If perhaps not only this action gets investigated and those scum who engaged in it are punished, if someone could also find out more what really happened in the original swift boat situation too, it would show these efforts as a general effort (and not just a "partisan response" to clean up the campaigning process that we'd be moving to, something that we all could get behind about cleaning up the partisan gamesmanship that seems to be a part of the process that turns off voters and everyone observing the process.
Investigating this one should take priority as it is timely now and directly affects this election, but perhaps John Kerry would also appreciate efforts to clean up his history too, and then he and so many other politicians like him can feel more free to stand up and take actions and endorse, speak up, etc. more on their own accord and not as "surrogates" for other people too. That would help restore faith in many politicians now if they can feel that these threats won't hang over them as much as they appear to now.
Other incidents such as Sibel Edmonds alleging an attempt by PTB to control Jan Schakowsky should have been investigated further too. I actually believe both Sibel Edmonds has tried to do the right thing of exposing swift boat types of actions,and Schakowsky is a great congresswoman, who likely was a victim of an attempt on blackmail on her personal life too both deserve to have an environment where this kind of crap doesn't happen to so many people.
mainer
(12,022 posts)He's making it sound like the widow of Rapport (married to him for only 5 years, many years ago) is right. Even though she wasn't there.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Wouldn't do much for his alleged journalistic cred to do otherwise.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Seemed to be saying he'd said so in his latest article too, iirc, but I didn't find a link to that article, so I couldn't read it to find out.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Here's what I see.
.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)As of 20:16 2/13/16
You're posting the subtitle/lead-in. Look up.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I bet I had a script blocked.
I thought they were changing it up.
.
marlakay
(11,473 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)"Photographer Says Disputed 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders." from headline
"...photo may indeed show the candidate"
"The contact sheets, reviewed by TIME, show pictures of the 21-year-old Sanders sitting on the floor wearing a rough, brown sweater and white shirt in what appears to be the same room as the disputed photo. The clothing Sanders is wearing on the floor in the recently discovered contact sheets looks to be the same as the clothing the young man is wearing in the photo in question. "
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And Capehart dug in with even more shoddy journalism.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)They should have done their due diligence. The retraction just isn't enough. Magazines like Time should be held to a higher standard. Moreover, I'm wondering why I haven't heard of any law suits being filed yet...
amborin
(16,631 posts)mum
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)... is the question now. Let's see where this "mistake" made by multiple major news outlets at exactly the same time really came from.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Someone posted me a couple days ago on an old thread on this topic. Guess someone was doing some follow-up. It's about time.
cali
(114,904 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Even if it wasn't Sanders in the picture, I couldn't possibly have cared less. He has a good record on civil rights. It was an incredibly stupid argument if it was Sanders in a particular picture and had no bearing on his platform today. If Sanders wants to gain traction with minority voters, he's going to have to do it based on today's platforms. Likewise if Clinton wants to keep her lead, she's going to have to do it based on what she's proposing today.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)nor is swift boating.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... so that none of them were called out for their acts of treason, and we go so far as covering up and rewriting history in the text books kids read not knowing that horrible incident took place which should have been exposed, and those responsible for those acts of treason should have been tried and convicted for them instead of owning companies that still to this day have been involved with subsequent acts of crime by their descendants recently on Wall Street.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)what has to go away are the people who engaged in this McCarthyism.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in a couple threads that DU hid ... Okay! Sanders was involved in sit ins and marches in 1968 (or so) ... what has he done since then beyond vote for other folks' civil rights legislation that just about every other Democrat voted for?
Logical
(22,457 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and you still haven't answered the question.
MaeScott
(878 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Unlike your candidate, the only other one in the race.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and she STILL isn't my candidate, despite being the only other candidate in the race.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's blatantly obvious that Sanders isn't your candidate, that only leaves one other possibility.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)LOL ... the first statement is true; the second, however, is not.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)fair is fair.
I will take him at his words, neither Sanders or Clinton are his candidate.
delrem
(9,688 posts)on slandering him and denying his long civil rights record, lost their case.
That's "so what".
Now you can get back to doing what you do best.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Pretty sickening.
eridani
(51,907 posts)He never used racist dogwhistles as Clinton did in 2008--he never has said that he is the candidate of "hardworking people, white people" He has never called black youth "superpredators"
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)That sets her apart from Bernie or any other democrat on civil rights? She did tell BLM acitvists that she would only talk to white people. That's different.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)That your question makes about as much sense as mine. None
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)How could they tell that from images that are black and white?
Time can't seem to stop itself from making things up, even in their supposed retraction.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)After all, they did finally interview him.
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)Sloppy sloppy writing then. But I expect no more of Time mag after all.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Response to kristopher (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.