milliefink: milliefink: “We will not keep eating your shit forever!”

Speaking of “shit”… check out this desperate NYT hit piece on Sanders:

Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors

It’s a disingenuous hit piece the NYT is carrying out in collusion with the corporatist right (the establishment that backs Clinton).

It’s not journalism, it’s the New York Times.

They simply wanted to mention that Sanders was there and muddle the waters so readers will hopefully infer that Sanders begged for and perhaps even received large donations from rich people for his own campaign.

That’s not what actually happened, but the purpose of that New York Times article was meant to confuse and indoctrinate, not enlighten their readers.

Of course, the conservatives are already eating it up and using the NYT hit piece to promote propaganda against Sanders.

An Anatomy of a New York Times hit piece:

(emphasis mine)

Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors

Nice, vague headline, NYT. One couldn’t possibly infer from it that Sanders is begging (courting) for money from donors for his own campaign. For a respectable news organization, the headline should have accurately read something like this:

Bernie Sanders Attends Fundraiser For Other Democratic Senators

or

Bernie Sanders Attends Fundraiser For Democratic Party

However, the NYT wants to remain vague and allow the public to infer otherwise. Now… in case the vague, misleading headline isn’t enough, they go on to write:

“But Mr. Sanders quietly stepped off the campaign trail this weekend to visit Martha’s Vineyard , a favorite summer destination of the country’s elite”

The writer slipped the word “quietly” into that sentence in order to very obviously infer that Sanders has something to hide.

The NYT wants the reader to infer that Sanders has ditched his principles, is “sneaking” into a secret, elite fundraiser to perhaps enrich his own campaign via undignified begging (courting).

This isn’t true and it shouldn’t be inferred, yet the New York Times isn’t interested in the truth here. The NYT wants to embolden Sanders’ foes, demoralize his base and dissuade potential supporters with vague allusions of hypocrisy.

Never us mind that Republicans have been whoring for billionaire sugar daddies. Let’s not look at all the massive, Wall Street bankster donors that have been lining the eager pockets of the Clinton campaign.

The NYT would have us believe the outrageous lie that Sanders is no different.

the country’s elite, in order to mix with representatives of some of the same interests he inveighs against in his stump speech.

Again, the trashy NYT wants the reader to infer that Sanders is “mixing” with rich interests in order to “court” them and bring money into his own campaign.

Not true, but the NYT is only interested in stealthily reinforcing misconceptions that work against Sanders.

They could have been really clear about why Sanders was there by this point in the article, but that would’ve involved journalism.

a supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, suggested Mr. Sanders’s appearance suggested he was more pragmatic than his rhetoric would let on.

Who is this unnamed “supporter”? Was this a Clinton operative? Was this one of Clinton’s rich donors? Both? Or, was this a figment of the writer’s imagination in order to help reinforce the narrative that “Sanders snuck into a sekrit enclave of rich people in order to hypocritically beg and snag money for his campaign”?

“So why would he take the weekend to spend in Martha’s Vineyard with wealthy people who are donating at least $37,000 and change to the DSCC?”

That’s not supposed to look like the obtuse, loaded question it really is…

In context of the preceding NYT narrative they’ve purposefully set against Sanders, our conveniently anonymous Clinton “supporter” is now supposedly asking a reasonable question about our hypocritical villain in this story.

I mean, what in the world was Bernie Sanders doing “sneaking” into a “wealthy enclave” and surrounding himself with all these wealthy people? Why was he there? It must be for awful reasons. What a hypocrite we should assume he is now.

Back to reality…

Here’s what the NYT doesn’t want to tell us…

Aside from speaking truth to power, Sanders was there to assist Democratic Senators to win and maintain seats in the future. His agendas as president will very obviously meet gridlock from Republican obstructionism if he doesn’t have enough Democratic support and solidarity in the future.

Sanders isn’t an idiot who thinks every other Democratic politician is going to magically follow his lead and attempt to grow grassroots movements to support them before the next elections.

Bernie Sanders has spent decades working and aligning himself with grassroots organizations. Sanders has their powerful, growing support to aid his campaign. These are grassroots forces that are turning out to be very formidable for disingenuous, Republican astroturfers as well as daring to increasingly cut into Hillary Clinton’s dwindling lead against Sanders.

On the other hand, most Democrats haven’t established that level of grassroots support (if any at all). It’s part of what’s wrong with our current political system in both parties. Nonetheless, these Democrats must win those seats or Sanders’ administration and his progressive agendas for average Americans will be obstructed.

Should Sanders ignore that situation? Should Sanders pretend to exist in a utopia and pretend these other Democrats don’t need money from their usual sources?

Is this the work of a hypocrite who is shunning his principles? Hardly — it’s the work of someone who, unlike Obama, plans on truly enacting his progressive policies after being elected instead of pandering to the left while spinning his wheels against Republican obstructionism.

Sanders isn’t just preparing to win the White House, he’s also preparing to become an effective president. That’s why he’s already setting up preliminary attacks against corporatist rivals such as the Comcast oligopoly and aligning himself with allies in the process.

The New York Times and their owners don’t want to report that nuanced reality. They want to distort Sanders’ actions as that of a sneaky hypocrite who is merely attempting to line his pockets when he thinks his base isn’t somehow looking.

Never mind the fact that the fundraiser was a very public event with obvious intentions. If Sanders wanted to raise secret money or corporate money with strings attached he would have done so like Clinton and the other Republicans have done with their scummy Super PACs, dark money, Wall Street bribe donations and billionaire sugar daddies the Republicans are whoring themselves to.

However, those facts don’t fit into this NYT narrative and hit piece against Bernie Sanders.

The criticism illustrates the rising irritation among some establishment-aligned Democrats with Mr. Sanders, an independent who caucuses as a Democrat. Some in the party are personally fond of Mr. Sanders, but believe his challenge of Mrs. Clinton, the overwhelming front-runner, is quixotic and will serve chiefly to push Mrs. Clinton to the left and delight Republicans hoping the former secretary of state has to spend money on a primary threat.

The NYT is duplicating the same tactic that FOX News uses where they utilize the “some people say” weasel wording to disparage a person instead of using real sources or simply speaking for themselves.

Observe:

It’s a great way for FOX News and the NYT to express their own opinions and attack someone without accepting journalistic responsibility for it. It’s also a cover tactic for those who don’t want to be held accountable for sponsoring disingenuous hit pieces that their media lapdogs like FOX News and NYT carry out for them.

A similar concept is where corporations like Walmart privatize profits while socializing losses. They benefit themselves behind a deceitful, protective wall of kickbacks and bribes towards the corporate news media while everyone else in America loses a genuine fourth branch and becomes misinformed, hopeless, apathetic, and even indoctrinated to fight against their very own interests.

en.wikipedia.org Fourth branch of government In the American political system, the unofficial fourth branch of government refers to a group that influences the other three branches of the US federal government defined in the American Constitution (Legislative, Executive and Judicial). Such groups can include the press (an analogy for the Fourth Estate), the people, and interest groups. US independent administrative government agencies, while technically part of the Executive branch (or, in a few cases, the Legislative branch) of government,...

No wonder the NYT despises Bernie Sanders. He’s a threat to their owners’ money and a threat to their quid pro quo business model between them.

Asked about Mr. Sanders’s appearance at the fund-raiser, his spokesman, Michael Briggs, said he would not recalibrate his populist language in the wealthy enclave.

In context of the rest of this shit hit piece, the NYT is now implying that Sanders should “recalibrate” his “language”.

“Language” is code for “rhetoric” and “recalibrate” is code for “flip-flop” and/or “capitulate”.

So, what is the NYT really asking??

“Shouldn’t that hypocrite change his disingenuous rhetoric now that we’ve inferred he’s been caught secretly pocketing a bunch of money from wealthy donors?”

Of course, by the time you’ve scrolled down this far where you can finally read a response from Sanders’ spokesperson… This following bold headline pops up with a giant picture of Hillary that says:

Hillary Clinton Picks Up Teachers’ Union Endorsement

Oh, how convenient. Once you’re just about done reading about how awful Bernie Sanders is, you scroll down and see the next headline below showing support for Hillary Clinton.

Of course at that point you might miss the part buried at the end of the Sanders’ hit piece within only several short sentences that Bernie was at the fundraiser to speak truth to power and help others to reclaim Democratic control of the Senate.

Meanwhile… guess what the other side is up to?

Wisconsin Living Wage Update: Scott Walker Expected To Sign Budget Eliminating Living Wage, Cutting University Funding, Loosening Restrictions On Payday Lenders