Home Americanism The Times For Sale

The Times For Sale

Bernie Sanders’s Revolutionary Roots Were Nurtured in ’60s Vermont, read Marquel, TPVs NYTimes Choose a Candidate and Call It News correspondent, while sending all his TPV earnings to Greece.

Marquel read the article about Sanders’ political roots and marvelled at how the Times managed to cover it all and minimalize, almost infantilize, the candidate and his beliefs–socialist beliefs shared by probably three quarters of the world’s population.

 

The article, instead of describing Sandersism, trivialized it at every turn as if only an idiot or Vermont hippie could share its values. It left little doubt that nobody over forty could possible believe in equality. This was the Times at its best/worst.

 

The author, a certain Hillary supporter by the name of Sarah Lyall (pen name?) seemed most unnerved about Sanders’ claim to have been a freelance journalist. She called that “a bit of a stretch,” because she could only find about a dozen published articles, although she mentioned the Movement, Sanders’own publication, that contains probably ten times that number.

 

I decided to interview Lyall, but couldn’t find her. Instead I found Stuart Little, who works in the Times cafeteria but apparently ghosted this piece on Sanders.

 

“How come you seem to find it difficult to accept Sanders’ claim to independent journalism?” I asked.

 

“Handful of articles,” he said.

 

“What’s the minimum?” I asked him.

 

“Don’t know.” He answered.

 

“What about you? How many have you written or ghosted?” I asked.

 

“This is my first.” He said.

 

“So…journalist?” I asked, pointing at him.

 

“Now I am,” he said.

 

“But you’ve got one. He’s got more.” I challenged.

 

“But this is the Times.” He countered.

 

“But your objection was he had too few, not their quality or source. Plus he’s got his name on all of them. You’ve got none.” I noted.

 

“It’s too complicated for the public to understand.” He concluded.

 

“Well let’s go over the article. You seem extremely hostile to Sanders, as well as superior. Why’s that?” I asked him.

 

“You have to admit he’s a minor candidate,” he said.

 

“Two things. Don’t minor candidates deserve fair treatment? And second, I think he’ll win.” I said.

 

He was quiet and looked at me with a combination of fear and cultural tourist. He said nothing.

 

“Okay, so, you start by calling ‘apocalyptic’ Sanders view that most corporate work is ‘moron work, monotonous work.’ ” Why is that apocolyptical?  He said it forty years ago and people are saying it today. Wouldn’t you call that prescient, not apocalyptic?” I asked.

 

“But that’s such a juvenile political view. It’s calling our whole society moronic.” He said.

 

“You don’t think that’s a valid criticism?” I asked.

 

He was quiet.

 

“Okay, let’s go on. You also editorialized that his claim that our society is death-oriented, was said in ‘apparent seriousness.’ Why couldn’t you let the reader decide? Doesn’t the Times trust its readers? Do we have to be led to Hillary and forced to drink the waters of cynicism?” I asked

 

“Well she’s a serious candidate.” He said.

 

“She and Bernie both raised almost the same amount last month, three million. Who’s the serious one?” I asked.

 

He was quiet again.

 

“Okay. You go on to say that Sanders ‘mocked’ public schools because he said it was ‘soul-destroying.’ Again, that was forty years ago. People are saying it now. Are they just mocking education or are they critics? Prescience again?” I asked.

 

“My soul wasn’t destroyed ” he protested.

 

“Would you know if it were? You serve soup and lie about your name. You could lead the Seattle NAACP. And you trivialize the beliefs of a man who wants to make us free. He wants to free you too!” I exclaimed.

 

“I’m free already.” He said.

 

“What about your soul?” I asked.

 

Again silence.

 

“Okay, Once again after saying he was not really a writer, you claim that he and his colleagues ‘opined in outraged tones’ about American society. You obviously think this is somehow overreaction. Don’t you think America today and forty years ago is an outrage?” I asked.

 

“Maybe…But this leftism.” He interjected.

 

“Maybe leftism is our only solution to the outrage…which incidentally is the product of forty years of rightism.” I said. “So that’s the problem. This is a simple screed against leftists. It’s a calumny and a libel. This was a hired hit.” I said, hating the Times more than usual but not more than it deserved.

 

“I did what I was told. Sarah wouldn’t do it.” He revealed.

 

“Aha!” I said. Then I was quiet. He was too and looked a bit less cocky. “So toward the end of the article when you say Sanders ‘argued’ that Cuba had made great progress in education and health, using ‘argued’ makes it seem like it was just Sanders opinion instead of incontrovertible fact recognized worldwide?”

 

“I suppose so, but the Times wants to make him to seem impractical, so all his ideas have to be irrational dreams. Otherwise Hillary might not win. She’s a douche bag.” He admitted.

 

I gave him a hug, told him not to worry about being a cog in the machine, and that Bernie is going to help all of us, not just the leftist nuts. He hugged me back and seemed to like that idea.

By MARQUEL: THE TIMES FOR SALE

8 COMMENTS

  1. Bullying the democrats into accepting Hillary! This is what newspapers used to do at the beginning or our democracy!

  2. In a few decades at most the Times, if it still exists, will deplore contributing to our demise as a democracy

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.