Senator Bernie Sanders during an interview with the editorial board of The New York Times in February, 2020. (Photo: Screengrab/NYT/Brittainy Newman)
Apr 10, 2020
It is the essence of American liberalism to trash radical dreams and then dance on them. And that's just what the New York Times did the day after Bernie Sanders bowed out of the Democratic race for the nomination. On that day, in a special editorial, the editors of the very same paper that disparaged his every move opined that America is divided and our democracy corrupt and launched a series promising to report on just the sort of transformative policies Sanders advocated.
"A great divide separates affluent Americans, who fully enjoy the benefits of life in the wealthiest nation on earth, from the growing portion of the population whose lives lack stability or any real prospect of betterment," they write.
In the Times' world, it's apparently ok to bemoan a society and an economy that privileges the rich over the poor, but it's unacceptable to run for the presidency on a promise to reverse those priorities.
"The United States has a chance to emerge from this latest crisis as a stronger nation, more just, more free, and more resilient. We must seize the opportunity," write the editors.
The words look pretty on the page, snug in among the Tiffany ads. But when a campaign seeks to seize not just opportunity but power--and spread it around--the same paper's reporters and headline writers called that campaign and the candidate leading it "threatening," "menacing" and "unelectable."
"The wealthy are particularly successful in blocking changes they don't like," the Times writes now, as if their own paper has played no role in that. On the eve of the decisive March 10th Midwest primaries, the week before which Sanders was leading in the polls, columnist Thomas Friedman redbaited Bernie for the umpteenth time, deliberately distorting democratic socialism as Stalinism and accusing Sanders of "demonizing the engines of capitalism and job creation."
The truth is, the New York Times, the paper of record of U.S. liberalism, likes the progressive pose. With gravitas, they write that out of the coronavirus crisis "there's a chance to build a better America."
But it didn't take a pandemic to wake 13 million Americans to that chance and to vote for it in 2016, or 2.1 million of them to contribute to that effort in this race. Those millions didn't need all this new, unnecessary death to hear the death knell sounding for status quo America. What they needed was a fairer chance against the establishment media.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Laura Flanders
Laura Flanders interviews forward-thinking people about the key questions of our time on The Laura Flanders Show, a nationally syndicated radio and television program also available as a podcast. A contributing writer to The Nation, Flanders is also the author of six books, including "Bushwomen: How They Won the White House for Their Man" (2005). She is the recipient of a 2019 Izzy Award for excellence in independent journalism, the Pat Mitchell Lifetime Achievement Award for advancing women's and girls' visibility in media, and a 2020 Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship for her reporting and advocacy for public media. lauraflanders.org
It is the essence of American liberalism to trash radical dreams and then dance on them. And that's just what the New York Times did the day after Bernie Sanders bowed out of the Democratic race for the nomination. On that day, in a special editorial, the editors of the very same paper that disparaged his every move opined that America is divided and our democracy corrupt and launched a series promising to report on just the sort of transformative policies Sanders advocated.
"A great divide separates affluent Americans, who fully enjoy the benefits of life in the wealthiest nation on earth, from the growing portion of the population whose lives lack stability or any real prospect of betterment," they write.
In the Times' world, it's apparently ok to bemoan a society and an economy that privileges the rich over the poor, but it's unacceptable to run for the presidency on a promise to reverse those priorities.
"The United States has a chance to emerge from this latest crisis as a stronger nation, more just, more free, and more resilient. We must seize the opportunity," write the editors.
The words look pretty on the page, snug in among the Tiffany ads. But when a campaign seeks to seize not just opportunity but power--and spread it around--the same paper's reporters and headline writers called that campaign and the candidate leading it "threatening," "menacing" and "unelectable."
"The wealthy are particularly successful in blocking changes they don't like," the Times writes now, as if their own paper has played no role in that. On the eve of the decisive March 10th Midwest primaries, the week before which Sanders was leading in the polls, columnist Thomas Friedman redbaited Bernie for the umpteenth time, deliberately distorting democratic socialism as Stalinism and accusing Sanders of "demonizing the engines of capitalism and job creation."
The truth is, the New York Times, the paper of record of U.S. liberalism, likes the progressive pose. With gravitas, they write that out of the coronavirus crisis "there's a chance to build a better America."
But it didn't take a pandemic to wake 13 million Americans to that chance and to vote for it in 2016, or 2.1 million of them to contribute to that effort in this race. Those millions didn't need all this new, unnecessary death to hear the death knell sounding for status quo America. What they needed was a fairer chance against the establishment media.
Laura Flanders
Laura Flanders interviews forward-thinking people about the key questions of our time on The Laura Flanders Show, a nationally syndicated radio and television program also available as a podcast. A contributing writer to The Nation, Flanders is also the author of six books, including "Bushwomen: How They Won the White House for Their Man" (2005). She is the recipient of a 2019 Izzy Award for excellence in independent journalism, the Pat Mitchell Lifetime Achievement Award for advancing women's and girls' visibility in media, and a 2020 Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship for her reporting and advocacy for public media. lauraflanders.org
It is the essence of American liberalism to trash radical dreams and then dance on them. And that's just what the New York Times did the day after Bernie Sanders bowed out of the Democratic race for the nomination. On that day, in a special editorial, the editors of the very same paper that disparaged his every move opined that America is divided and our democracy corrupt and launched a series promising to report on just the sort of transformative policies Sanders advocated.
"A great divide separates affluent Americans, who fully enjoy the benefits of life in the wealthiest nation on earth, from the growing portion of the population whose lives lack stability or any real prospect of betterment," they write.
In the Times' world, it's apparently ok to bemoan a society and an economy that privileges the rich over the poor, but it's unacceptable to run for the presidency on a promise to reverse those priorities.
"The United States has a chance to emerge from this latest crisis as a stronger nation, more just, more free, and more resilient. We must seize the opportunity," write the editors.
The words look pretty on the page, snug in among the Tiffany ads. But when a campaign seeks to seize not just opportunity but power--and spread it around--the same paper's reporters and headline writers called that campaign and the candidate leading it "threatening," "menacing" and "unelectable."
"The wealthy are particularly successful in blocking changes they don't like," the Times writes now, as if their own paper has played no role in that. On the eve of the decisive March 10th Midwest primaries, the week before which Sanders was leading in the polls, columnist Thomas Friedman redbaited Bernie for the umpteenth time, deliberately distorting democratic socialism as Stalinism and accusing Sanders of "demonizing the engines of capitalism and job creation."
The truth is, the New York Times, the paper of record of U.S. liberalism, likes the progressive pose. With gravitas, they write that out of the coronavirus crisis "there's a chance to build a better America."
But it didn't take a pandemic to wake 13 million Americans to that chance and to vote for it in 2016, or 2.1 million of them to contribute to that effort in this race. Those millions didn't need all this new, unnecessary death to hear the death knell sounding for status quo America. What they needed was a fairer chance against the establishment media.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.