I was going to post in in "Good Reads" and had the snips ready..but, held off.
Anyway...here's what I had snipped and knew I'd have to winnow it down a bit:
-----------
From the Salon Article:
----------
Virtually every time Sanders is mentioned in the 2,000-word article about the debate, he is discussed in terms of Clinton, not on his own terms.
When Sanders dared to disagree with Clinton, the Times reduced his arguments to “anger”-inducing “assaults” and “attacks.” Clinton “came under assault from Mr. Sanders,” the establishment newspaper wrote, adding “Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Malley both did their best to anger Mrs. Clinton,” and “Mrs. Clinton scarcely wanted to engage her rivals, except when sharply attacked.”
O’Malley was later written off as a mere “irritant.”
The Times loves Clinton so much it fails to even fact-check her, instead preferring to uncritically echo her talking points. The newspaper quotes Clinton snapping back at Sanders, stating “I think it’s fair to say Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000 Syrians.” What the newspaper fails to mention is that this is wrong; 250,000 is the total number of Syrians who have died in the civil war that is approaching its fifth year. The Syrian regime is not responsible for all 250,000 deaths. But pointing out Clinton’s mistakes would detract from “The Hillary Clinton Show,” so it is clearly off the table.
(This was not the only Middle East-related error in the story. Even more egregious was the Times misquoting Sanders saying “Tell Yemen, go to war against ISIS.” In reality, Sanders stated “Tell Saudi Arabia that, instead of going to war in Yemen, they, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, are going to have to go to war against ISIS.” The former erroneous statement frankly makes no sense, and indicates a demonstrable ignorance about basic foreign affairs.)
------
When Sanders noted, in a crucial detail that has been ignored by the media, that the Clinton campaign may have also spied on his campaign’s DNC voter data, and not just vice-versa, the Times glibly reduced the point to an “unsubstantiated suggestion of impropriety by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign,” refusing to even entertain the notion.
The Times concludes its article depicting Clinton in a shining light, writing “‘Thank you, good night, and may the force be with you,’ she said, beaming.” What the newspaper conveniently forgot to mention, while referencing what effectively amounted to Clinton’s public advertisement for “Star Wars,” was that the film’s director J.J. Abrams and his wife gave $1 million to Clinton’s super PAC. Blatant conflicts of interest are apparently not deemed newsworthy to the publication that purports to convey “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”
More at...............
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/20/no_longer_pretending_to_be_objective_nyt_turns_3rd_debate_into_the_hillary_clinton_show/
= new reply since forum marked as read
