Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:00 PM Feb 2016

Time publishes retraction on Bernie photos "Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders"

Photographer Says Disputed 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders
Sam 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 Lyon—today a well-known chronicler of the Civil Rights-era—told 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/
59 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Time publishes retraction on Bernie photos "Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders" (Original Post) kristopher Feb 2016 OP
It only took three or so months UglyGreed Feb 2016 #1
They didn't just swift boat Bernie they impugned the reputation of an award winning photographer. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #2
Time magazine can suck it. TwilightGardener Feb 2016 #3
"Recently discovered contact sheets" my ass. Fuck Time magazine Arazi Feb 2016 #4
Photographers made contact sheets and then chose photos bjobotts Feb 2016 #26
They need to investigate who hired the smear merchants. Qutzupalotl Feb 2016 #5
He was on campus FIGHTING FOR CIVIL RIGHTS.... MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #6
Does anyone think if they hadn't got a tsunami of pushback the lie would be still standing? Fumesucker Feb 2016 #7
Agreed 100% eom Arazi Feb 2016 #9
Hard and swift. n/t cui bono Feb 2016 #12
My favorite moment of Bernie's speech the night he won New Hampshire Arugula Latte Feb 2016 #15
Absolutely. nt Duppers Feb 2016 #23
Yes. 840high Feb 2016 #36
Thank God this is over bravenak Feb 2016 #8
Hell, I'm Carolina Feb 2016 #17
It's not over for me. I want to know who did it. Peace Patriot Feb 2016 #37
Yep, and it would also have reinforced that original swift boaters should have to answer as well... cascadiance Feb 2016 #57
At last. But Capehart is still holding firm. mainer Feb 2016 #10
Fuck Capehart .. notoriety whore. nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #20
Covering his own ass, I suppose truebluegreen Feb 2016 #24
In his twitter feed, he's saying she was there. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #27
The headline I'm seeing at that link doesn't match yours cui bono Feb 2016 #11
"Photographer Says Disputed 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders" kristopher Feb 2016 #13
Oh, I allowed some scripts so I could watch the livestream of the rally and now I see it. cui bono Feb 2016 #18
What page was it on 54??? Nt marlakay Feb 2016 #14
Good. Capehart still clinging desperately to bullshit... AzDar Feb 2016 #16
Great!! ONE LESS distraction from the issues voters care about. Thank you Time. nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #19
Their headline winks that they don't 100% believe it - tomm2thumbs Feb 2016 #21
Exactly. This is no retraction. SMC22307 Feb 2016 #22
This whole thing stinks. davidthegnome Feb 2016 #25
Time darn well better; they don't have a shred of journalistic integrity without doing this, at mini amborin Feb 2016 #28
Who pushed the "story" in the first place? DirkGently Feb 2016 #29
We solved this one at DU when this pseudo issue arose. TIME runs slower leveymg Feb 2016 #30
We instigated and pushed for the corrections. cali Feb 2016 #39
I hope this goes away mythology Feb 2016 #31
The historical record is not a minor thing nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #32
Look at how the wealthy PTB traitors got away with treason when Smedley Butler exposed them too... cascadiance Feb 2016 #58
The treatment of Danny Lyon and of his work is indicative of very dangerous political tactics and Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #50
So what? ... As DUer Empowerer noted ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #33
LOL, you hillary fans thought Bernie was lying. He was not. nt Logical Feb 2016 #34
LOL ... I'm not a HRC supporter. I have told you that, repeatedly ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #35
Try this.... MaeScott Feb 2016 #38
He avoided saying that black youths need to be brought to heel Fumesucker Feb 2016 #43
HRC didn't say BLACK YOUTHS need to be brought to heel ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #44
Touchy, touchy, no need to shout Fumesucker Feb 2016 #45
I capitalized only for emphasis ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #46
Hold it, it does leave 6 other possibiliies nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #52
It means the swiftboating ratfucking trolls, intent on destroying a good man's record, delrem Feb 2016 #40
Hear, hear! Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #41
And when that's done they move the goal posts and do it again. pa28 Feb 2016 #51
He didn't rush home to get in on the execution of a mentally disabled black man eridani Feb 2016 #42
a better question: what has Clinton done? noiretextatique Feb 2016 #49
How is that a better question? eom. 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2016 #54
It is not...just pointing out noiretextatique Feb 2016 #56
a "brown" sweater? Laughing Mirror Feb 2016 #47
Perhaps they got that from conversations with the photographer. kristopher Feb 2016 #48
Perhaps Laughing Mirror Feb 2016 #55
But the "death panels" are already out there. nt valerief Feb 2016 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Feb 2016 #59

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
2. They didn't just swift boat Bernie they impugned the reputation of an award winning photographer.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:02 PM
Feb 2016

The whole disgusting scandal has Brock written all over it, there needs to be an investigation.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
4. "Recently discovered contact sheets" my ass. Fuck Time magazine
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:04 PM
Feb 2016

they simply fucked up and didn't do any real research

 

bjobotts

(9,141 posts)
26. Photographers made contact sheets and then chose photos
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:45 PM
Feb 2016

Back then photography was different and more expensive.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
6. He was on campus FIGHTING FOR CIVIL RIGHTS....
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:06 PM
Feb 2016

Not the mouthpiece of the corporate oligarchy, Henry FUCKING Luce , you piece of shit RAG!

Fuck you, Time!

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
7. Does anyone think if they hadn't got a tsunami of pushback the lie would be still standing?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:06 PM
Feb 2016

That's what it's going to take, pushback on every lie.

 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
15. My favorite moment of Bernie's speech the night he won New Hampshire
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:24 PM
Feb 2016

was when he called out the media and the crowd went wild.

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
37. It's not over for me. I want to know who did it.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:24 AM
Feb 2016

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)
57. Yep, and it would also have reinforced that original swift boaters should have to answer as well...
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 05:34 PM
Feb 2016

... 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&quot 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)
10. At last. But Capehart is still holding firm.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:15 PM
Feb 2016

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.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
24. Covering his own ass, I suppose
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:25 PM
Feb 2016

Wouldn't do much for his alleged journalistic cred to do otherwise.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
27. In his twitter feed, he's saying she was there.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:50 PM
Feb 2016

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.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
13. "Photographer Says Disputed 1962 Photo Really Does Show Bernie Sanders"
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:18 PM
Feb 2016

As of 20:16 2/13/16

You're posting the subtitle/lead-in. Look up.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
18. Oh, I allowed some scripts so I could watch the livestream of the rally and now I see it.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:53 PM
Feb 2016

I bet I had a script blocked.

I thought they were changing it up.

.

tomm2thumbs

(13,297 posts)
21. Their headline winks that they don't 100% believe it -
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:06 PM
Feb 2016

"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. "





davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
25. This whole thing stinks.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:43 PM
Feb 2016

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)
28. Time darn well better; they don't have a shred of journalistic integrity without doing this, at mini
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:52 PM
Feb 2016

mum

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
29. Who pushed the "story" in the first place?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:53 PM
Feb 2016

... 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)
30. We solved this one at DU when this pseudo issue arose. TIME runs slower
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:55 PM
Feb 2016

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.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
31. I hope this goes away
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:59 PM
Feb 2016

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.

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
58. Look at how the wealthy PTB traitors got away with treason when Smedley Butler exposed them too...
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 05:40 PM
Feb 2016

... 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)
50. The treatment of Danny Lyon and of his work is indicative of very dangerous political tactics and
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:24 PM
Feb 2016

what has to go away are the people who engaged in this McCarthyism.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
33. So what? ... As DUer Empowerer noted ...
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:01 PM
Feb 2016

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?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
35. LOL ... I'm not a HRC supporter. I have told you that, repeatedly ...
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 11:11 PM
Feb 2016

and you still haven't answered the question.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
43. He avoided saying that black youths need to be brought to heel
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:01 AM
Feb 2016

Unlike your candidate, the only other one in the race.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
44. HRC didn't say BLACK YOUTHS need to be brought to heel ...
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:06 AM
Feb 2016

and she STILL isn't my candidate, despite being the only other candidate in the race.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
45. Touchy, touchy, no need to shout
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:10 AM
Feb 2016

It's blatantly obvious that Sanders isn't your candidate, that only leaves one other possibility.



 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
46. I capitalized only for emphasis ...
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:43 AM
Feb 2016
It's blatantly obvious that Sanders isn't your candidate, that only leaves one other possibility.


LOL ... the first statement is true; the second, however, is not.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
52. Hold it, it does leave 6 other possibiliies
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:30 PM
Feb 2016

fair is fair.

I will take him at his words, neither Sanders or Clinton are his candidate.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
40. It means the swiftboating ratfucking trolls, intent on destroying a good man's record,
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 07:24 AM
Feb 2016

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.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
42. He didn't rush home to get in on the execution of a mentally disabled black man
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 07:58 AM
Feb 2016

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)
49. a better question: what has Clinton done?
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:53 PM
Feb 2016

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.

Laughing Mirror

(4,185 posts)
47. a "brown" sweater?
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:28 PM
Feb 2016

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)
48. Perhaps they got that from conversations with the photographer.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:19 PM
Feb 2016

After all, they did finally interview him.

Response to kristopher (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Time publishes retraction...