Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?

Dear Friends,

As I wrote a couple of days ago, The New York Times seems to have decided that it will not provide fair coverage to Bernie Sanders.  About that same time Margaret Sullivan the Public Editor for The Times, wrote a column entitled: "Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?" (here).  It was good that she took the complaints seriously enough to write the column, but in my view her response was rather dismissive in itself.  Here is one of her first paragraphs.

It’s not hard to understand the news judgment at play here: Given Hillary Rodham Clinton as such a dominant candidate, with widespread support, lots of money and the Democratic Party’s likely imprimatur, almost any other Democratic candidate looked like an also-ran. And Mr. Sanders — whose politics are significantly left of center and who is 74 years old — didn’t appear to be the kind of candidate to change that view.

What I hear her saying is that The Times will cover the person with money, establishment support and centrist views who will not upset the status quo with which The Times is very happy.

Ms. Sullivan goes on to provide the numbers which speak for themselves, but she interprets the lopsided coverage of Hillary Clinton by saying that The Times did not ignore Mr. Sanders and that some of the coverage of Hillary was not favorable.  The fact that Senator Sanders is not burdened by a huge email scandal hardly justifies not giving him coverage.

How does this compare with the coverage of some of the other candidates, particularly Mrs. Clinton? Looking at August alone, The Times ran 14 articles on Mr. Sanders, compared with 54 on Mrs. Clinton. Donald Trump – like Mr. Sanders, also considered by many an extreme long shot for his party’s nomination – got the most coverage last month: 63 articles. Other Republican candidates received far less ink than Trump: Jeb Bush was the subject of 18 articles in August, and Marco Rubio, 10. (Of course, not all press is good press for any of the candidates. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, for example, many of the August articles dealt with her questionable email practices as secretary of state.)

So, in terms of numbers alone, The Times certainly has not ignored Mr. Sanders. The Times did get off to a very slow start with its Sanders coverage but has responded as the crowds at his events have grown.

What Ms. Sullivan wrote was technically correct.  The Times has not ignored Bernie Sanders.  They simply gave Hillary Clinton almost 4 times the coverage when measured in stories about them.  Ms. Sullivan also pointed out the obvious that Donald Trump who we can only hope is not a serious candidate got the most coverage.  Ms. Sullivan makes no attempt to justify that fact on journalistic or any other grounds.  It is in fact something about which I hope she is embarrassed.

In a separate column, Ms. Sullivan published an email from The Times Senior Editor, Carolyn Ryan, responding to criticisms of the coverage or lack thereof of Bernie Sanders (here).  Ms. Ryan also uses the numbers to indicate that they have not ignored Bernie Sanders but fails to justify the huge difference in coverage.  In my view, her response is more defensive than enlightening.  Of course, the fact is the criticism that The Times is not providing fair coverage to Bernie Sanders is valid so it is impossible to defend The Times' coverage.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bernie Sanders Leads the Way

Dear Friends,

A clear pattern is developing.  Bernie Sanders continues to speak out on issues he has always supported and pushed for solutions he has always supported, but now he has a platform that is gaining incredible support, despite attempts by the establishment to limit his exposure.  The result is that the establishment is being forced to react to these issues and are proposing similar, but less effective solutions.  There have been two examples in the last couple of days.

As you all know, Bernie has been proposing free public college tuition, etc. for a long time.  Now President Obama has proposed a national advisory board to push for the idea of free community college.  President Obama is, as happens way too often, a day late and a dollar short.

The second example is that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now proposing actually prosecuting individuals on Wall Street instead of just getting minuscule fines from the big banks.  If Attorney General Lynch's initiative actually is implemented, it will overturn Attorney General Holder's ridiculous policy that the big banks were too big to jail, a policy that President Obama embraced.  Not coincidentally, President Obama takes the same approach to those in the Bush administration who are war criminals (think Vice President Cheney) but is trying to prosecute whistleblowers who disclosed the crimes.  Senator Sanders has long called for prosecuting individuals on Wall Street and now the pressure that he has exerted is getting results.

Bernie needs our support and encouragement.  He is getting people engaged in politics again and giving all of us hope that we can get real change in government.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Robert Reich on Bernie Sanders

Dear Friends,

Robert Reich, a great political economist, who, among other important positions he has held, was the Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, recently had two posts on Facebook that I could not help but copy here in full.  Despite being in President Clinton's cabinet do not mistake him as a middle of road, right of center politician like Bill and Hillary.  His blog and Facebook posts are great.  Here are two recent Facebook post.  They require no elaboration.

As Hillary Clinton falters and Bernie Sanders surges, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to panic. “If party leaders see a scenario next winter where Bernie Sanders has a real chance at the Democratic nomination,” Garnet Coleman, a Democratic national committeeman told the N.Y. Times, “leaders will reach out to Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Kerry or even Gore about entering the primaries.”
Wait a minute. Didn’t Biden, Kerry, and Gore all lose in their presidential bids? If Bernie continues to gain ground, Party leaders would be wise to embrace him rather than run away from him. If the Democratic Party has a future, it will look and sound a lot more like Bernie Sanders than establishment candidates. After all, even when Democrats had the White House and a majority in Congress -- during Obama’s first two years and also during Bill Clinton’s first two years -- they still allowed big corporations, Wall Street, and billionaires to plunder our economy and pillage our democracy.

“I don’t understand it,” a political reporter I’ve known for years told me this morning. “A new poll shows Sanders leading in Iowa. He’s leading in New Hampshire. It makes no sense.”
“It makes sense to me,” I said.
"Well then, explain it to me."
“Bernie is speaking about what’s true and important – the plundering of our economy and the pillaging of our democracy by big corporations and Wall Street and billionaires.”
“But that’s been going on for years,” he said. “Why now? Why are Americans suddenly waking up to it?”
“Because it’s reached a tipping point.” I explained. “There hasn’t been this much inequality of income, wealth, and political power since the Gilded Age of the 19th century. Americans are fed up.”
“But they’re disillusioned with politics. Few even vote. So why are they suddenly becoming involved now? How do you explain the crowds?” he asked.
“Because in Bernie they’re discovering someone who isn’t afraid to tell the truth or to propose big solutions.”
“Maybe you’re right,” said the reporter. “But I’ll believe it if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.”
“Stay tuned,” I said.

I promise I will stop with these two, but I encourage you to like his page so you can get them in the future.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Refugees

Dear Friends,

The news is full of reports about the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria.  The calls for action are increasing every day.  Yet the responses are ludicrously inadequate.  Yesterday, President Obama announced that the United States would take 10,000 refugees next year, and he said it like it would make a difference.  It will, of course, make a difference for those 10,000 people, but it will do nothing to solve the humanitarian crisis the world is facing.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (here)

Wars, conflict and persecution have forced more people than at any other time since records began to flee their homes and seek refuge and safety elsewhere, according to a new report from the UN refugee agency.
UNHCR's annual Global Trends Report: World at War, released on Thursday (June 18), said that worldwide displacement was at the highest level ever recorded. It said the number of people forcibly displaced at the end of 2014 had risen to a staggering 59.5 million compared to 51.2 million a year earlier and 37.5 million a decade ago.

Recent reports say that the number is now over 60 million people.  Obviously resettlement is not a solution to this problem.  In the long term, ending war, violence, oppression and poverty is the only solution.  We need to let people live in peace and hope.

The current focus is on refugees from Syria who are fleeing in huge numbers.  The people of Syria are being killed, maimed and terrorized by their own government as well those opposed to the current government as well as ISIS, etc.  The United States response to this genocide has been pathetic.  I do not expect us to send ground troops, but we have the ability to enforce a no-fly zone but have refused to do so.

A recent article in The International Business Times (here) has a good analysis of the issues surrounding a no-fly zone.  The Telegraph published an op-ed piece by a representative of the Syria National Coalition (here) that argues convincingly for a no-fly zone.

A no-fly zone will stop the Syrian government from using barrel bombs to kill civilians, it should enable the establishment of safe zones where aid agencies can provide water, food and shelter.  I realize that Russia will probably continue to oppose any such actions, but we cannot sit by and continue to watch the genocide in Syria and force people to flee their homeland in violent and perilous conditions.  The world needs to stand up to bullies whether Bashar al-Assad, Putin, ISIL or any others.

President Obama needs to act.  We may not be successful, but we can no longer sit by and watch.  We need to give all the people displaced by war and violence around the world hope that the rest of world is not turning their backs on them.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Media Bias

Dear Friends,

I have read many articles about how the media refuses to report on Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Today I came across an example I would like to share with you.  I heard that Senator Sanders was introducing a bill to reduce drug costs.  When I googled it, I found that the Wall Street Journal had picked up the story as had The Hill.  As of this time, The New York Times has nothing.  They cover everything that Donald Trump does and everything that Hillary Clinton does, but they do their best to avoid covering Bernie Sanders.  Donald Trump is rude, loud and obnoxious so they cover him. Hillary Clinton is establishment and has many enemies so they cover her.  Bernie Sanders has sound, clear solutions to problems that the establishment of both major political parties refuse to enact.  He is polite, thoughtful and generous in spirit.  I guess that is not what sells papers.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Bill to fight high drug costs

Dear Friends,

Senator Sanders is introducing legislation that would permit Medicare to negotiate drug prices (something that it is currently prohibited from doing), allow people to import drugs from Canada and require drug companies to disclose overseas pricing.  Republicans in Congress will undoubtedly oppose any such efforts although according to an article in The Hill (here) Senator McCain has supported the ability to import drugs from Canada in the past and a higher majority of Republicans support reducing drug costs than repealing Obamacare.

The Republicans who talk about how the market will take care of everything refuse to let Medicare negotiate a market rate for the drugs that Medicare recipients use.  I guess the free market is only good when it benefits the rich.

When 66% of Republicans want to prioritize lower drug costs, it is clear that the Republican members of Congress are not responsive to their constituents.  They are responsive to their money men.

We need Senator Sanders and his leadership to continue to challenge the oligarchy that controls Congress.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal