(Okay, the “microaggressions” we use tongue-in-cheek.)
Any regular reader of The Times has seen the pattern of negative slights against Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders by The New York Times. It should be no surprise since the paper has come out and endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic race.
But the insidiousness of The Times campaign against Sanders has been so underhanded – and brilliant – that it cannot be ignored.
One of the simplest examples: Photographs of the candidates.
Go back months over photos found in The Times for both Sanders and Clinton. For Ms. Clinton you will find shot after shot mostly showing the candidate forthright and positive.
Look for pictures of Mr. Sanders. You’ll see the back of his head, the top of his head, shots emphasizing his gray hair, even one shot of him taken behind stair bannisters so it appears he’s behind jail bars. Sometimes he’s not even in the picture at all.
As the NYT’s editors know, a picture tells a thousand words. And the message they’ve been telling is they don’t want you to like Bernie Sanders.
As far as stories covering the candidates, The Times constantly writes articles undermining the attributes of Sanders while touting Clinton’s experience and dedication.
We’re not too thrilled with any of the candidates. But we can certainly state that Clinton’s experience has shown us she is dedicated to nothing but being elected and accruing more power, money and influence for herself and her husband.
And over and over again Hillary Clinton has proven she’s willing to change her positions on issues anytime her well-paid pollsters tell her it’s time to change.
People, and candidates, can change. We always hope our politicians can change for the better. But a newspaper like The Times that coddles a candidate like Hillary Clinton while underhandedly denigrating Bernie Sanders does nothing to further the political process.
Shame on The New York Times and publisher Art O. Sulzberger and editor Dean Baquet.