Capehart just wrote a new article about the Bernie photo controversy

[oberliner]

Here it is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/13/bernie-sanders-and-the-clash-of-memory/

[exboyfil]

1. No backtracking

Full steam ahead. Turned it into he said/she said but since she was a spouse, she trumps the photographer. This after the photographer has film absolutely confirming the fact that it is Sanders. He links to the evidence, but never discusses how it should have more weight.

[mainer]

6. She was married to Rapport for only 5 years.

And this was many years ago.

[exboyfil]

16. Don't disagree at all

I would trust photographic evidence over 50 year old memories any day. They do look somewhat alike (even though the earlobes are clearly different), and he was involved in the same cause as Bernie. Chances are he was in front of audiences speaking as well. Just not this time.

It should have never have been used against Bernie to begin with even if he wasn't in the picture. The Time piece brought it into question, but Capehart tried to use it like a club.

[Skwmom]

17. She was only married to him for 5 years and was NOT at the sit in. n/t

[cali]

34. The evidence is explained clearly in the Time article I posted

[UglyGreed]

2. Well that was a click I would

like to take back..........

[bravenak]

3. I wish he coukd stop himself from doing this.

[mainer]

4. He's so blinded by wanting to be right, he can't see the truth.

This is not a journalist.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. And, after all, it appears in the Washington Post

(little puke in the back of my throat emoticon)

[TDale313]

5. This is turning into

Full on Birther-level shit.

[Fumesucker]

7. Bless his heart

He certainly is an industrious little feller.

[madfloridian]

19. .....

If I had another heart to give, I'd give it to you for that post.

[SwampG8r]

8. Not good enough capehart!

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. further digging in, I see

His twitter feed will be fun...

[oberliner]

23. He's really gotten an earful on twitter

So to speak.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I know I have gone back for the fun

[oberliner]

62. He is really sticking to his guns

Have you been following the most recent tweets?

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Yup, on my feed

it is funny

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. how much is Capehurst getting "paid" for this?

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Excellent article. Thanks.

[TwilightGardener]

12. He's trapped in a career meltdown of his own making and can't find an honorable way out.

What a fucking tool.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Lots of ink for everyone but the photographer whose additional stills prove him right.

Capehart is a hack and deserves to be fired. Had he come put and admitted he made a mistake my opinion might have softened. But he didn't so it hasn't.

[beam me up scottie]

14. There is no controversy, he made it up, he got caught and now he's spinning his wheels.

He's a hack and his reputation is in ruins, loser.

[oberliner]

26. He did win a Pulitzer Prize in 1999

For what that is worth.

[beam me up scottie]

28. He can say goodbye to any more awards.

He tried to destroy the reputations of two good men and now he's paying the price.

[Cheese Sandwich]

27. +a million. It's as plain as day from the photos.

Washington Post could call in a photo forensic expert if they had any doubt.

But there is no doubt. Capehart is a shill. The political damage is done though, and just in time for South Caroline. How convenient!

The Post takes a reputation hit as well.

[TTUBatfan2008]

15. I'm glad...

Bruce's family and friends are supporting Bernie. I understand their desire to make sure Bruce gets credit for his efforts. But the other photos released along with the ear comparisons are pretty strong evidence that it was Bernie.

[oberliner]

20. Interesting that everyone he spoke to is voting for Bernie

Weird, though, that he is sticking to his guns that it might not be Bernie in the photo.

[kenfrequed]

18. Is this guy planning on actually doing a retraction?

Or a Mea Culpa or something?

He is just sort of blurring the whole thing into a mess without acknowledging that he was at bare minimum wrong for not doing a better job of fact checking. I mean, shouldn't a proper journalist get his facts right?

[oberliner]

22. I think this was it

Interestingly, Time Magazine ran an updated story as well:

http://time.com/4220480/bernie-sanders-disputed-civil-rights-photo-1962/

[OrwellwasRight]

57. The Time Story

seems more balanced. Perhaps because it actually published to other photos in the sequence.

[Broward]

24. No mea culpa from Capehart. He's lost all credibility.

The higher-ups at the Post should've issued a retraction if Capehart was unwilling to set the record straight himself.

[HooptieWagon]

29. It wasn't just the existence of the outtake photos.

The contact sheet of the entire roll of film shows the photos in sequence. Same subject person in movement in a sequence of shots. Game. Set. Match.
Capehart is just weasel-spinning to save his ruined reputation. Just fucking man up, admit your research was sloppy, people can have faulty memories and you didn't interview the photographer, and you wrote a false story.

[oberliner]

31. Very weird that he didn't think to interview the photographer before running the initial story

You'd think that would be journalism 101.

[HooptieWagon]

35. Yes, assuming he's a journalist.

It's looking like he's just a hack writer regurgitating a 'story' the campaign handed him.

[oberliner]

37. He won a Pulitzer in 1999

He's been a pretty respected journalist going on two decades.

This was really bad.

[HooptieWagon]

43. And Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.

IDK the details of his Pulitzer Prize, but his recent story was just a hack hatchet job that took less time to debunk than it took him to write. He never even talked to the photographer...smh. And now he's trying to spin an excuse...lame.

[oberliner]

45. They were a series of articles about saving the Apollo Theatre

Not about politics, per se.

[HooptieWagon]

46. Doesn't sound like much research or investigation needed.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Well he was a key member of an team that got a Pulitzer for Editorial Writing for a series of pieces

about the Apollo Theater. So it was not an individual award, it was not for reporting but for persuasive writing and it was not about politics. It was a very excellent and useful series of editorials. But since clarity of writing is a key factor in awarding the Editorial Pulitzer, I feel we should point out the facts clearly when speaking of that award.
He shared an award for writing editorials about a theater. 17 years ago.

[oberliner]

49. Goodwin credited editorial writers Michael Aronson and Jonathan Capehart in particular

Its "Showdown at the Apollo" series was written in that spirit, and all six members of the Editorial Board were honored for contributing to it. Goodwin credited editorial writers Michael Aronson and Jonathan Capehart in particular for "pulling the plow" on the Apollo editorials. The other prize winners are Deputy Editorial Page Editor Brian Kates and board members Karen Hunter, Alex Storozynski and Karen Zautyk. Goodwin said the board was alerted to the Apollo's decrepit state during a tour last March of the once-venerable theater, whose Amateur Night launched the careers of Pearl Bailey, Gladys Knight, James Brown and other pop icons. Its troubles were laid out for the first time April 26 in a two-part editorial bearing the logo "Showdown at the Apollo.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/news-wins-pulitzer-top-honor-apollo-theatre-editorials-article-1.825525

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Like I said, shared an award for writing editorials about a theater. 17 years ago.

I also said it was good work and also useful work. Editorial and collaborative, non political good work.

I'd say the collaborative nature of the work he was awarded for is something that is currently lacking in his solo career as a man who works without checks and scoffs at all outside opinion, including at this point the actual word of the man who took the pictures.

[oberliner]

53. Just providing more info

I looked up the details and thought I would share.

He certainly looks bad here, that's for sure. Could be a career ender.

[bigtree]

75. not just a theatre

...a landmark of black history.

[Aerows]

30. There is egg on a *LOT* on faces that so desperately

wanted this to be true.

I guess this is the Hillary Supporter way - since you can't beat him on issues, you can't beat him on ethics and you can't beat him on principles, make shit up.

I have never seen a campaign grasp at so many straws to discredit and alienate a person that is an exemplary leader.

I expect the next major controversy to be that he didn't put money in the Salvation Army can because he's Jewish, or that he didn't buy girl scout cookies because he's a misogynist.

If Hillary & Co. wonder why lifelong Democrats aren't exactly knocking down the doors to vote for her, they only need to look at their candidate's behavior. By their fruits you shall know them.

[HooptieWagon]

39. She didn't learn her lesson in '08, ...

...and she's not going to learn her lesson from this. Next week they'll attempt another smear, and again end up wearing the feces they've flung. It's comical, like watching Wile E. Coyote.

[ChiciB1]

32. All You Have To Do Is Look At THE NOSES!!

They are different and the one is Bernie Standing!

[TTUBatfan2008]

54. Ear as well...

The guy standing has Bernie's ear. The two guys have a similar appearance overall but the nose and ears are pretty different.

[AzDar]

33. He's fucking ridiculous.

[NowSam]

36. I believe the photographer

It's Bernie.

[CentralMass]

38. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post

http://www.alternet.org/media/what-will-washington-post-be-under-jeff-bezos

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Capehart made up this story and did not even bother to call Danny Lyon to ask about the photo

The 'wife' was married to Bruce for five years way the fuck back then. She was not present on the day of the photo in question at all.
Lyon is an established photojournalist whose work is collected and archived, curated. His work is considered source material in and of itself in many cases. He has been praised for his work and personal courage by Congressman John Lewis, another subject of some of Lyon's best known images.

Capehart is a hack and his paper is a work of fiction.

[oberliner]

41. Actually he got it from the Time Magazine story

That was published in November.

[HooptieWagon]

44. Then he's just lazy.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. So he's just repeating gossip while Time is constructing it, no one checks the facts or calls the

people most qualified to speak about the photographs no matter how many gossips repeat the tale on their TV shows with Capehart claiming absolute knowledge that is in fact just bullshit people made up and other 'journalists' just swallowed whole, an entire industry that does not actually do the job it claims to do, all for six figure salaries and Pulitzer Prizes for passing on really good gossip.

Toxic to the United States of America. These are McCarthy's heirs.

[Vattel]

42. What a piece of work.

Even if he is going to stick his head up his ass and ignore the evidence, he should at least apologize for attacking Sanders' integrity on the basis of the photo. Capehart's lack of integrity is glaring.

[R B Garr]

48. Gotta go with the wife. And roommates. The thing I

noticed right away is that the hair on the standing Bruce Rappaport is more of a flattop. I'm sure she would know her husband whom she married during that time period.

Bernie's head/curls look more round-y. Both obviously have thick curls, but those pictures show a flattop.*

Capehart is right about Tad Devine. He could not confirm that was Bernie, and he was flippant when asked why they were using that unconfirmed picture with the imprimatur of Bernie Sanders for President. If you can't even believe someone's campaign spokesman, well....

*not sure what the 60's's hairstyles were called. Flattops?

[Kalidurga]

52. I would go with the emotional evidence too if it conflicted with actual photos.

[R B Garr]

59. The wife described physical details of her husband, Bruce.

So did the roommates. If there is any excessive emotionalism, it's from over-invested Sanders supporters who have probably never seen either man, especially during the time period in question.

So Capehart caught a lot of crap for basically nothing. Tad Devine was also cagey and misleading. This story came out before in November, but he had a specific question for the campaign now. Looks like the University deferred to the photographer to keep from having more archives questioned. So it's not really debunked -- just shelved.

[Kalidurga]

61. And the pictures in sequence show that it is clearly Bernie

they are clear enough that if they were crime scene photos he would be convicted of being there.

[R B Garr]

64. Tad Devine couldn't even say for sure.

Strange interview with a supposed campaign spokesman.

[mhatrw]

68. I am so sick of this crap. It's Sanders. Clinton ratfucked him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511216872

answer the questions!

[Armstead]

76. Did you see Capehart on Hardball? He was pressibng a minor "Gotcha" like it was a huge scandal

Even if Capehart's claim were true, it'd be worth nothing more than a little mention in a round up of political chit chat.

But he "coincidentally" brought out this "scoop" on tekevision the same day other Clinton surrogates were Swiftboiating him abiut whether Bernie "really was involved" in the civil rights movement.

Reprehensible.

[Andy823]

56. Also look at the hands

In the questioned photo you can see that hands are long as are the fingers, same way they look in the picture Rappaport and his wife. The man in the picture looks tall and his spine does seem to curve forward. Bernie is 5'8, not so tall, and in pictures his hands seem to be about average, not long with long fingers.

I too agree about what Devine was saying on MSNBC about how they "weren't" trying to say it was Bernie, just using the picture, and he got all red in he face and flustered. He was obviously not saying they knew for sure it was Bernie, even though Weaver has come out now and said they are sure. My question is why doesn't Bernie speak out on this? Some have said he already once said he wasn't sure himself.

No matter who it is, and we will probably never know for sure, those who think it is Bernie will continue too, and those who disagree will continue to think it isn't. It is really not as big a deal as some here have made it, and once again decided that the actions of one person is an act of Hillary Clinton's "swift boating" Bernie.

[R B Garr]

65. Agreed. Great post. I didn't realize Bernie was only 5'8"!

That makes the wife's comments about her husband's tall bent forward neck make sense. She recognized it.

Agreed that it's not a big deal overall. Bruce's daughter said she understands why the campaign would want to use the standing picture because it's more powerful, but no one denied Bernie was there. Capehart was just asking why the campaign would use a yet unconfirmed picture, and the campaign spokesperson mislead him.

Dragging Hillary into this is really ridiculous. Agreed it was not necessary.

[mhatrw]

69. It was a total ratfucking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511216872

Answer the questions.

[R B Garr]

74. LMAO! The conspiracy theory is hilarious!

You don't even touch on the two or three things that made me curious about it, although I couldn't even get through it and quit reading. Ugh. You obviously didn't watch Tad Devine on MSNBC about this.

That is some DEEP END skulduggery conspiracy there. How embarrassing for you.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. At this link is a famous photo by Danny Lyon of John Lewis or apparently a photo Lyon and Lewis

claim is of John Lewis. It's not a full face shot so perhaps Lyon, being so untrustworthy is lying? Lewis claims he does not even know any of these people, yet this photo is in Library of Congress as if it was verified history...

Take a look. Are Lyon and Lewis telling the truth about this photo?
John Lewis in Cairo

Accession Number:
2012:127
Artist:
Lyon, Danny
http://www.mocp.org/detail.php?t=objects&type=browse&f=maker&s=Lyon%2C+Danny&record=81


Perhaps it is time to review and to question?

[K Gardner]

55. I'm sorry. I can't look.

My blood pressure can't take anymore. *sigh*

[Hoyt]

58. What difference does it make? Clearly Sanders was involved. Who is in the photo just doesn't

matter. Give Sanders credit for the part he played. Give Clinton credit. And thank god for Lewis, MLK, Parks, Evers, Till, Freedom Riders, and everyone who stood for justice.

[delrem]

70. Huh? "Give Clinton credit."

She was a Goldwater supporter, tho' that was so early in her life that I don't hold it against her and she did grow up. But what "credit" should she get for organizing for civil rights at that particular time?

And I lived through those times and know that Bernie Sanders, and all the "white progressives" of the time who're now being slandered and called nasty names for what they did, were much more courageous than ME. Had a much much more developed social conscience, social understanding than me. They are still among my heroes and heroines.

Capehart's spouse is tightly connected with the Clinton campaign. Is that the kind of "credit" that you mean? That this was a top-down swiftboating ratfucking smear that went awry, and Clinton should take credit where it's due? I doubt she's that's hands-on, myself, and expect it was contracted out through Brock.

[Hoyt]

71. Until 1967 at latest. She was 20. Heck, Warren was a GOPer much later than that.

Clinton grew up in a conservative household, so early GOPer period is not that unusual. She changed in college because of Civil Rights Movement. Yeah, she deserves some credit too.

[delrem]

72. Well, you'd better tell that to Capehart.

I'm sure he can run a column explaining all about this "credit" that you're giving her.

[Octafish]

60. Capehart blames UChicago.

The archives were manipulated, certainly. That doesn't excuse his propagandist's role as smear artist first class. He also fails as a journalist for failing to mention his partner's connection to DEMs. I'll side with one of the greatest universities in the universe on this one.

Oh. And this second piece also is a smear. The non apology excuse happens as one sentence buried two graphs from the end.

[Jarqui]

66. I did this compare

from these two photos






Do these look like the same guy (Bruce Rappaport)?

Edit: there could be up to a year difference or more between the photo. Randy Ross, Bruce's wife, joined CORE but wasn't at this event - might have been before her time. Bruce looks a little heavier in the left hand pic but it might be that he put on a little weight in the year before he got married.

I also thought the guy in the pic looked a little nerdy with what appears to be a pen pocket protector in his shirt. My first impression of this photo of Bruce at U of Chicago was he looked nerdy.

[catnhatnh]

67. You want to know the most bizarre part

He quotes the daughter of a woman who was not there as proof of a man's identity-a man whom the daughter apparently never met and which was taken before she was born....Thems' some fookin' credentials for expert testimony...