Ah well, like everything else, the New York Times isn't what it used to be.
It too easily bows to whomever it perceives to be powerful; the government,
the advertisers, the Israel lobby, the establishment...
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:15 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New York Times Gets It Wrong: Bernie Sanders
Not "Top Beneficiary of Outside Money"
haven't read the below article yet, but the NY Times really got it wrong in
its endorsement article about Hilarity.they started out making so-called
comparisons with Bernie couched to make Hilarity look glorious and Bernie
not so much, then they pulled the old bait and switch and began comparing
Hilarity to the RethugliKKKlans en masse and not mentioning Bernie at
all.well compared to the Repukelicans, Bozo the clown looks pretty good,
too.really disingenuous, to say the very least...
On Jan 31, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The article leaves the wrong impression by suggesting that
pro-Sanders
Super PACs have outpaced outside groups supporting Hillary Clinton."
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a New Deal-style liberal, at a
campaign
event on Sunday at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. (photo: Max
Whittaker/NYT)
New York Times Gets It Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not "Top Beneficiary of
Outside
Money"
By Lee Fang, The Intercept
31 January 16
he New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic
man-bites-dog style
campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled "Bernie Sanders
Is Top
Beneficiary of Outside Money." The article charges that despite his
fiery
campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics,
Sanders has
gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic
opponents.
"In fact," the Times reports, "more super PAC money has been spent
so far in
express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic
rivals,
including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission
records."
While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign
spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong
impression by
suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups
supporting Hillary Clinton. If that sounds confusing, that's because
the
Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.
When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are
leading the
way.
The newspaper calculated totals using only "independent
expenditures" spent
by Super PACs. If the Times had taken into account all pro-Clinton
Super PAC
campaign spending from this cycle, outside money spent in support of
Clinton
is more than twice the amount spent in support of Sanders.
The National Nurses United, a labor group for nurses and the only
significant group to pour money into a Super PAC supporting Sanders,
has
indeed backed the Vermont senator by spending a little more than $1
million
on "independent expenditures," a term used by the Federal Election
Commission to describe communications spent "expressly advocating
the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." When you dig
into
these filings, some are advertisements, while much of the $1 million
includes a special Bernie Sanders-branded bus, printing costs, and
workshops
hosted by the group.
Clinton's campaign has benefited from Super PAC spending that has
been
disclosed as both independent expenditures and non-independent
expenditures.
In the piece that ran on page A17 on Friday, the Times narrowly
considers
pro-Clinton independent expenditures - which total about $847,000 -
while
leaving out other spending.
Previous stories by the Times, however, describe in detail how Super
PACs
such as Correct the Record operate as a shadow Clinton campaign
capable of
receiving unlimited donations. Correct the Record uses its resources
to pay
campaign staffers to provide opposition research, communications,
and
strategy to elect Clinton, though not all of that spending is
disclosed to
the FEC as an independent expenditure.
To debunk the claim that the nurses are outspending all pro-Clinton
outside
groups, one merely has to look at six months of spending and limited
independent expenditure disclosures by the primary pro-Clinton Super
PACs
Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action. Doing so finds that
pro-Clinton outside organizations have spent well over $2.2 million
during
this campaign cycle on staff, consultants, research, advertising,
communications, advocacy, and other campaign-related expenses. If
you add in
pro-Clinton independent expenditures from Planned Parenthood, the
Service
Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters,
and the
Human Rights Campaign, the pro-Clinton total rises to more than $2.6
million.
That pro-Clinton outside money number is likely to rise dramatically
after
new disclosure reports are released this weekend. The Super PAC
disclosures
will reveal the last six months of spending in 2015. And given
reports that
Clinton Super PACs are sitting on a war chest that is estimated to
be in the
tens of millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals,
corporations,
and unions, the comparison to the nurses union, which raises its
cash from
working nurses, may look quite strange in only a few days.
Nicholas Confessore, the reporter who wrote the piece, defended it
on
Twitter, writing, "[Independent expenditures] are a perfectly
reasonable way
to measure political spending in this context."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a New Deal-style liberal, at a
campaign
event on Sunday at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. (photo: Max
Whittaker/NYT)
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/https://theintercep
t.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
New York Times Gets It Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not "Top Beneficiary of
Outside
Money"
By Lee Fang, The Intercept
31 January 16
he New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic
man-bites-dog style
campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled "Bernie Sanders
Is Top
Beneficiary of Outside Money." The article charges that despite his
fiery
campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics,
Sanders has
gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic
opponents.
"In fact," the Times reports, "more super PAC money has been spent
so far in
express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic
rivals,
including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission
records."
While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign
spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong
impression by
suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups
supporting Hillary Clinton. If that sounds confusing, that's because
the
Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.
When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are
leading the
way.
The newspaper calculated totals using only "independent
expenditures" spent
by Super PACs. If the Times had taken into account all pro-Clinton
Super PAC
campaign spending from this cycle, outside money spent in support of
Clinton
is more than twice the amount spent in support of Sanders.
The National Nurses United, a labor group for nurses and the only
significant group to pour money into a Super PAC supporting Sanders,
has
indeed backed the Vermont senator by spending a little more than $1
million
on "independent expenditures," a term used by the Federal Election
Commission to describe communications spent "expressly advocating
the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." When you dig
into
these filings, some are advertisements, while much of the $1 million
includes a special Bernie Sanders-branded bus, printing costs, and
workshops
hosted by the group.
Clinton's campaign has benefited from Super PAC spending that has
been
disclosed as both independent expenditures and non-independent
expenditures.
In the piece that ran on page A17 on Friday, the Times narrowly
considers
pro-Clinton independent expenditures - which total about $847,000 -
while
leaving out other spending.
Previous stories by the Times, however, describe in detail how Super
PACs
such as Correct the Record operate as a shadow Clinton campaign
capable of
receiving unlimited donations. Correct the Record uses its resources
to pay
campaign staffers to provide opposition research, communications,
and
strategy to elect Clinton, though not all of that spending is
disclosed to
the FEC as an independent expenditure.
To debunk the claim that the nurses are outspending all pro-Clinton
outside
groups, one merely has to look at six months of spending and limited
independent expenditure disclosures by the primary pro-Clinton Super
PACs
Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action. Doing so finds that
pro-Clinton outside organizations have spent well over $2.2 million
during
this campaign cycle on staff, consultants, research, advertising,
communications, advocacy, and other campaign-related expenses. If
you add in
pro-Clinton independent expenditures from Planned Parenthood, the
Service
Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters,
and the
Human Rights Campaign, the pro-Clinton total rises to more than $2.6
million.
That pro-Clinton outside money number is likely to rise dramatically
after
new disclosure reports are released this weekend. The Super PAC
disclosures
will reveal the last six months of spending in 2015. And given
reports that
Clinton Super PACs are sitting on a war chest that is estimated to
be in the
tens of millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals,
corporations,
and unions, the comparison to the nurses union, which raises its
cash from
working nurses, may look quite strange in only a few days.
Nicholas Confessore, the reporter who wrote the piece, defended it
on
Twitter, writing, "[Independent expenditures] are a perfectly
reasonable way
to measure political spending in this context."
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
