Suspicion about current New York Times "letters to the editor" this Friday morning.

[Akamai]

Let me explain.

Paul Krugman has a piece in the NY Times this morning attacking entitled, "Sanders Over The Edge" -- attacking Sanders in demonstrably untrue ways, I believe. (Also not taking Clinton's and her surrogates attacks into account.)

Until about 4:30 AM, Pacific Time this morning, the major "Readers Picks" rejoinder to the article -- picked by general readers -- was a letter by the wonderful Gemli, with several hundred approves. The NY Times had picked with approbation the rejoinder by Greg Howard (giving it the yellow "T Pick" seal of approval).

About 4:30, it may have had several hundred endorsements, greatly trailing Gemli.

But now it greatly leads the pack of letters and I suspect jiggery-pokery is at work.

Howard's letter leads off: "I've been a Sanders supporter for many months, and have said so clearly. But I'm crossing over to the dark side now and supporting Ms. Clinton." It finishes with: "Shame on you, Bernie. Stand on your own. There's no need to waste time belittling your opponent. Either you believe in your vision or you don't."

My view is that this is probably a clear instance of the Clinton people getting the word out to their supporters to support a letter criticizing Bernie.

Why don't Bernie supporters who are NY Times readers respond in kind?

Go the NY Times site, go to the opinion section, click on today's Krugman column, and go to letters to the Editor, click on "Readers Picks", and look at the Howard letter, and, of course, look at Gemli, Garcia, and other wonderful letter.

And, if you like Gemli, Garcia, and others, give them a thumbs up.

Go Bernie!!!

[choie]

1. I noticed that too,Akamai

[Akamai]

2. Good for you! One of my real joys is reading the letters of Gemli, Rima Regas, Garcia and others

This sudden rise of the anti-Bernie letter seems very dubious and underhanded.

Go Bernie!!!

[AgerolanAmerican]

36. NYT is in the tank for Clinton

they always print positive stuff about her and negative stuff about Sanders if they can't black him out entirely

corporate media gonna corporate

[snowy owl]

38. Comments sec. closed by early PM. I tried to reply.Comments close quickly but that was a record.

I dislike the way the NYTimes cuts off comments so quickly but I think this was a record. I don't trust them. Also, they monitor comments. Also, they don't allow comments on so many of their questionable columns and articles.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors

[SwampG8r]

3. A "bernie butter" has no credibility

Every one here on du who tried to play that part has been a fraud and i feel that applies this too.

[Bobbie Jo]

6. Exactly.

They never really loved him.

[SwampG8r]

7. Love not involved

Anyone supporting his issues would not go to her as the alternative.
Simple logic.

[Bobbie Jo]

11. "logic"

Anyone who uses the term "bernie butter" to describe anyone who is less than enamored with the man, has no claim to "simple logic."

[SwampG8r]

12. The bernie butter phenom is an obvious lie

And bernie butters are obvious liars

[Bobbie Jo]

14. LOL

I'll just let that comment (and the one following) speak for itself.

Gotta say, I appreciate the demonstration.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. Except that's not how they used the term.

They used it correctly, to describe someone who spouts a variant of "I am/was for Bernie, but..." To wit:

"I've been a Sanders supporter for many months, and have said so clearly. But I'm crossing over..."

And none of this is a matter of logic. That's not what logic does.

[bemildred]

4. I dunno about the astroturfing, but whenever I see an "I've always been an X, but now I'm anti-X"

opinion piece, I always start with the idea that it's probably bullshit. That's not a rule, but it's an excellent heuristic.

It's called the "third-party testimonial technique", and it involves the introduction of a real or imaginary opponent of what you want, preferably an authority figure (scientists are a favorite, but it depends on the subject), who has now discovered that they were wrong all along. And it is very popular all over.

The problem/virtue of it is that it is just some guys opinion, so you can't really argue with that, and it maintains the image that the issues is in dispute, which is the objective, that is fundamentaly it is a stall. In the meantime you get to repeat your arguments against whatever it is.

[merrily]

26. On DU, spotting the frauds is much easier. Almost everyone I thought was lying about a year ago has

"switched" from Bernie to Hillary. There are still a handful fiercely keeping up the charade. Maybe at this point, they'll just keep it up until June. Poor dears.

[Kalidurga]

34. I like the ones that "code" switch

They start a reply with I'm a Bernie supporter but I think he made a mistake there. Then in another thread they forget that they are Bernie supporters and just openly trash Bernie. Then in yet another thread they talk up Hillary. Often times the Hillary Group is their favorite.

[merrily]

41. Let's just say: If posting were acting, they would not get the Academy Award!

[Kalidurga]

52. Maybe in the category, best comedy.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Oh yeah, they're obvious, one even "switched" to Hillary three times!

Last edited Sat Apr 9, 2016, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Each time the "reason" was even more outrageous than the last.

I wonder how many of them think that they're fooling anyone?

[merrily]

47. Ooooo, I must have missed the three-time loser!

I didn't follow every meander. I just remember who made me, and, I'm sure others, laugh when he or she declared for Bernie and where he or she is now. Poor dears! What a pointless, self-humiliating charade!


“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

[beam me up scottie]

48. They posted an op about it each time, made a big deal out of it - like anyone cares.

So much DRAMA.

[merrily]

50. Wankery.

[Segami]

5. NYT Paul Krugman link....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

[BernieforPres2016]

20. I save the 10 NYT articles I can read a month for news pieces

But it is obvious from that headline that Krugman is part of the Hillary team pursuing the "disqualify" strategy. Krugman is a dishonest lying piece of shit and always has been.

[snowy owl]

40. He's establishment. That's his status symbol I guess. Nobel not enough.

[merrily]

49. Krugman was against Obama Boys before he was against Bernie Bros.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/8/1481627/-WOW-Before-the-sexist-Bernie-Bro-Clinton-supporters-created-the-sexist-Obama-boy-No-seriously

I suppose he gets points for consistency. Then again.....

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

[brooklynite]

8. You really think the NYT thinks there's value in jiggering ONLINE comments?

[Akamai]

15. I never said that -- I think the Clinton people are being urged to promote the Anti-Bernie letter.

Sure as hell is suspicious when Howard's letter vaults into the lead so dramatically.

To promote the letter all one has to do is click the "thumbs up" sign.

Sure seems very well organized to me, and now suddenly people are likely to see the Times readers as Anti-Bernie, when very few of them were that way before today. Take a look through the previous comments on articles by Brooks, Krugman, Dothan, etc., and you will see clearly that the tone back then has suddenly shifted and I believe that it is a concerted and secret effort to switch the apparent support from Bernie to Hillary.

Smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

Go Bernie!

[LuvLoogie]

30. No fair copying Bernie's clicky-clickers!

[TheFarS1de]

45. Well now ....

[Doctor_J]

9. Prof Krugman is now an unabashed partisan. His opinion means nothing any more

Our liberal columnists are so few it's a shame when one goes over the the conservatives.

[merrily]

27. He was equally partisan in 2008. Straight Clintonite, both primaries. "Louder" this time, though.

[DanTex]

10. Conspiracy!

[TheFarS1de]

46. Squirrel !

&nohtml5=False

[BlueCaliDem]

51. I know! Tragic, isn't it?

And pretty sad.

[Skwmom]

16. More manipulative b.s. The Times turns articles into smear pieces against Bernie after they are

written and links sent out by Bernie supporters. If they would do that, they would do anything.

It's nothing more than a Russian type propaganda news source.

[FlatBaroque]

17. Most informed people do not read the NY Times. /

[jillan]

18. As Hartmann pointed out, he received an email from the Clinton campaign with talking pts on how

to destroy and disqualify Bernie.

So F them and their poutrage at Bernie for standing up to their coordinated smear campaign.

[merrily]

28. It was totally obvious to all but the professional deniers, but good for Hartman for confirming

anyway.

[amborin]

31. that same email was surely received

by many at a certain site, too, judging from the sliming that has been occurring since WI

[TM99]

33. Did he share it on air?

Is there a way Hartmann could release this? It needs to be out there for all to see.

[jillan]

35. Here ya go. It was on the top of greatest page yesterday ;)

[BernieforPres2016]

19. Trying to fight the NYT or WaPo on their turf is an exercise in futility

The quote for taking on the press in the old days was "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." People who still view the NYT, WaPo, CNN and MSNBC as neutral sources on this Democratic primary race will never be won over.

[merrily]

29. Great quote, thanks.

It's even truer now that huge conglomerates own media. The market forces no longer operate. NBC can afford to lose money on MSNBC and will make it up by ensuring someone who will take the conglomerate fairly does not get into office.

[Impedimentus]

21. Did the NY Times "Hide" the Gemli Comment ??? I can't find it. Did the Clinton people "Flag" the ...

comment? Did a swarm of Clintonites "flag" Gemli's comment and it removed as being inappropriate? I had that happen to me several times in the past and have cancelled my subscription when the my payment period runs out at the end of the month.

Anybody - is Gemli's comment gone ???

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[Akamai]

22. I apologize -- You are correct. I think I was thinking of the Gemli response to Brooks -- I read a

lot of the letters to the editor this morning starting at 4 pm in response to the Krugman article and the Brooks article, but I am sure that the Howard anti-Bernie letter (in the Krugman thread) sprinted to the top of the list very quickly, very suddenly, with several hundred votes instantaneously coming on line. Statistically impossible without a concerted effort, I think.

Thanks for pointing that out about Gemli not being there.

I really think Gemli should publish a list of his/her wonderful writings. Great progressive with great historical perspectives, etc.

Go Bernie!

[amborin]

23. in today's ny times the top story is a hit piece and so is krugman's column

[Impedimentus]

24. After 55 years of being a loyal NY Times reader I cancelled my subscription when my payment period

ends this month. I gave the person that took the cancellation an earful on the telephone (not directed at her, but at the paper's management) and also wrote a long critique about why I was cancelling when they sent me a survey about cancellation.

The degree to which the oligarchs control the media, the banking system and so much else proves that the United States is no longer a democracy. The Clintons are part of the oligarchy - they only care about money and power. It's Bernie or it's we're finished as a great nation.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[Akamai]

25. At 8:18 pm 3519 NYTIMES readers applauded a letter about

how a person was earlier for Bernie Sanders but he is switching to Hillary. As far as I know no letter has had as many thumbs up. But I do not believe that the endorsements are from average NY Times readers

Easy for David Brock and other activists to increase those numbers on the anti-Bernie message, but is it worth it to do it sleight of hand?

I sure think not. We gotta be honest.

Go Bernie!!!

[amborin]

32. you have to be a subscriber to be able

to recommend posts; probably all of her surrogates, etc. got an email blast with the link to the post

[Akamai]

37. Yes -- I think you are right about that. We subscribe but I

have been on the site for more than ten years, I think.

I believe you are correct about the blast but am not sure it was sent to average people. One small group of people may be able to do the same thing. Thom Hartmann this last week talked about one person in South America manipulating the social media in incredibly effective ways.

Who knows? Quien sabe?

Go Bernie!!!

[Impedimentus]

39. There is something fishy going on. Way too, too many recommends for that kind of article. 3500+

is almost unheard of, and then only for rare, VERY exceptional articles. I highly suspect some kind of swarming or manipulation. The comments have been extremely pro-Bernie for months. I expected some kind of response from the Clinton camp and I think we are seeing it. The Times may be manipulating the "recs" - they have lost all objectivity in their cheerleading for Clinton.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[jfern]

43. Yeah, those who support Hillary generally start fixing things in her favor

They know she would have been utterly destroyed already if things were fair.

[jfern]

42. No Bernie supporter paying the slightest bit of attention

would decide to switch to Hillary when he final responds to her non stop attacks.