The NY Times Editorial Board Threw Another Stink Bomb At Bernie Today

[Impedimentus]

The Times has lost all credibility as a reputable newspaper when it comes to the 2016 Democratic primary season. Just like MSNBC, the coverage is either Trump, positive Hillary, or negative Bernie.

The comments are overwhelmingly favorable to Bernie and have been criticizing the Times for months now for their bias. I submit comments fairly often, criticizing their abysmal coverage of Bernie. The comments section has become the best part of the paper. If you are a subscriber I strongly encourage you to submit your comments. So far they are getting published, although articles that in the past would have had a comments section often now do not. Amy Chozick is Hillary's #1 promoter at the Times and most of her articles now do not allow comments. They read like Clinton campaign press releases and Bernie hit pieces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-bernie-sanders-revolution.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region

Anyway, the "Readers' Picks" of the comments section are usually excellent and about 10-1 in favor of Bernie.

[Babel_17]

1. My reply, if it gets approved

I can only hope that this editorial was written for some kind of balance, and that an upcoming one will take on Secretary Clinton for the unending lies from her campaign. Perhaps the editorial board has come to recognize the real jeopardy Secretary Clinton is in from the two investigations by the Inspectors General (President Obama appointees), and the upcoming FBI report. Maybe the email exchanges with Sidney Blumenthal are just too much to ignore, as are the finaglings behind The Clinton Foundation. And of course the unreleased transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches, an issue the editorial board gave a spot-on assessment regarding. Maybe the board is preparing its readers for a call asking Secretary Clinton to withdraw herself from consideration. If so, then I consider this current editorial an appropriate bridge to that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Great we need to write letters to the editor of these newspapers

I've been writing to the Washington Post but they ignore

[Babel_17]

5. They're pretty conservative, it's like they're always sweating bullets over their stock portfolios

Or worrying how their boss's will be doing.

[Impedimentus]

3. Thank You

Sometimes it can take many hours for a comment to be published, especially on weekends since each comment is reviewed.

[Babel_17]

4. Yup, I thought a comment to the last editorial I wrote to got rejected, it took so long to post

Nice crowd over there, they challenge me to limit the snark and post substantively. lol

[Impedimentus]

6. My Submission - Reply to Editorial

It will be a long wait if they publish it - weekends are really difficult.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Impedimentus Nuuk Pending Approval

The country and the world are facing too many potentially cataclysmic challenges to believe that incremental change is anything but incremental backsliding. The youth of the nation and their children will confront a climate catastrophe of a magnitude never witnessed by modern man. Student debt has economically enslaved an entire generation of the best and brightest. The mental disease of insatiable greed has infected the 0.1% and they are destroying not only the economy, but also the very political stability of the world as they lust for ever more wealth and power.

Hillary Clinton, at her best, can only parrot Bernie Sanders's positions. She has shown herself to be little more than a political weather vane, changing positions daily, only adding to the belief that she is insecure and that her only goal is to take possession of the White House. Bernie Sanders is the candidate of "We", for Hillary Clinton it is all about "I".

As a loyal reader of the Times for over 50 years I am saddened that the Times continues to show blatant anti-Sanders bias in its editorials, op-eds, and most depressing in what it claims to be news coverage. Your readers have spoken again and again, but you do not listen. For the sake of your children and for the planet, throw off the shackles of the moneyed interests and the establishment and join the revolution;

"Feel the Bern" NY Times.

[Babel_17]

7. Great point about climate change, and student debt is highly relevant to the editorial

Lots of voices can make a lot of difference.

[Impedimentus]

9. Comment Finally Published

I hope yours was published, it too over 10 hrs for mine.

[Babel_17]

10. Saw it and Recommended it

The New York Times picks show an establishment bias.

Mine got published. I'm waiting on a reply to someone else to make it through. They seemed unaware of how much money the Sanders campaign had raised recently.

[AgerolanAmerican]

8. NY Times = mouthpiece of the ruling class

They are telling us what they fear, and what they fear is Bernie.

[unflapped]

11. Yes, the NYTimes is totally biased

As a fairly constant reader of the New York Times I can tell you from my experience that they clearly feel very threatened by the Sanders candidacy. Perhaps it's his constant lambasting of the corporate media? I'm not sure. But it's not because his ideas are less realistic than Hillary's, and it's not because he's unelectable. In fact, this editorial doesn't even cover his electability (hopefully the polls have killed that ridiculous suggestion), but rather focuses on the unrealistic nature of his policies, as if Hillary would get the Congress they describe to do any better.

In this scenario, the choice is between two people who won't get much through Congress, but they don't say that, do they? They simply say that Sanders won't get much through Congress, so don't vote for him, without addressing at all the very same fact about Hillary.