"New York Times reporter Sydney Ember has a problem with Bernie Sanders — which may be why the paper has her cover him.
Ember is supposed to write reported articles, not op-eds, but she consistently paints a negative picture of Sanders’s temperament, history, policies, and political prospects in the over two dozen pieces she’s done on him. This makes sense, given the New York Times’s documented anti-Sanders bias, which can be found among both editors and reporters alike. ...
But for the sake of time and length, this piece focuses on her selection and misrepresentation of sources, which have already drawn scrutiny. Brad Johnson, a political analyst with a background in climate science, pointed out that Ember quoted a source without mentioning that she’s a corporate lobbyist; journalist Zaid Jilani noted that Ember failed to disclose that another source was a senior advisor for a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. Education scholar Diane Ravitch devoted a blog post to the reporter’s 'shameful' reporting on Sanders’s education policy, questioning the authority of her sources."
-->Yes, it is no secret that the corporate wing of the national media, the NYT, wants anyone but Bernie. The NYT is even willing to violate journalistic standards to get its pro-corporate agenda out. Sort of the same way the newspaper covers Israel.
"Billionaire mega-donor Haim Saban said Wednesday that he loves every 2020 Democratic presidential candidate—before quickly correcting himself. 'No, minus one. I profoundly dislike Bernie Sanders, and you can write it,' Saban told The Hollywood Reporter. ...
Saban—who told the New Yorker in 2010 that he is 'a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel'—expressed fury at Sanders last year for spearheading a letter that called for humanitarian aid to the occupied Gaza Strip."
-->This would have been an interesting story for the NYT to report on. But our newspaper of record shies away from linking Israeli billionaires to the funding of the Democratic party. It didn't carry this story.
"The majority of American veterans and members of the general public agreed in two new surveys that the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the U.S. military campaign in Syria were all 'not worth fighting.'
The Pew Research Center, for the pair of polls published Wednesday, asked all respondents to consider the costs versus the benefits to the United States in their analysis of whether each conflict was worthwhile.
Roughly two-thirds of both veterans and members of the public told Pew that the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq wasn't worth it, and nearly 60 percent said they felt the same way about the ongoing 18-year war in Afghanistan—the longest in U.S. history."
--The NYT, a persistent warmonger when it comes to US military interventions, did not cover this story. Maybe the newspaper is too busy urging attacks on Iran and Venezuela.