Common Dreams:
"Either Booker is echoing his biggest donors or he is coincidentally out of step with the Democratic Party and aligned with NORPAC, which just happens to be based in his home state of New Jersey
In last Wednesday’s Democratic debate, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) stood apart from the other candidates on the stage by declining to commit to return to the Iran nuclear deal. Videos viewed by LobeLog show that Booker’s unusual position is shared by NORPAC, a pro-Israel PAC aligned with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). As Booker’s biggest donor, NORPAC contributed $185,871 to Booker’s campaign committee in 2018, a cycle in which Booker wasn’t even up for election."
-->Yes, some candidates have obviously been bought by the the Israeli Lobby. But try finding that fact in the mainstream media. Kamala Harris anyone?
-----
The Guardian:
"We are shocked that the Open Source Festival in Düsseldorf has disinvited the black American rapper Talib Kweli, leading to the cancellation of his Germany tour, after he refused to denounce the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. Attempts in Germany to impose political conditions on artists who support Palestinian rights, particularly targeting people of colour and queer artists, comprise a shameful trend of censorship, anti-Palestinian repression, and attacks on freedom of conscience. ...
Dr Sara Roy of Harvard University, a leading Middle East scholar, recently addressed members of the German parliament: 'I lost a large extended family to fascism and racism. By endorsing the motion that alleges that BDS is antisemitic – regardless of one’s position on BDS – you are criminalising the right to free speech and dissent and those who choose to exercise it, which is exactly how fascism takes root. You also trivialise and dishonour the real meaning of antisemitism.' ”
-->Talib Kweli's censorship never made it onto the pages of the NYT. When it comes to choosing between free speech and the Israel Lobby, our newspaper of record always favors the latter.
-----
FAIR:
" 'Buttigieg Raises $24.8m, Eclipsing Sanders as Candidate Cull Looms.'
The thread running through these takes is that money, not public support, is what defines a candidate’s 'momentum” or 'surge,' and determines who is in 'eclipse.' Voters are great, seems to be the thinking—but what really counts are donors.
Of course, from a voter’s point of view, what really matters is not how much financial support a candidate is getting, but who they’re getting it from—because those supporters may not have the same interests as the voter. In the case of Buttigieg, the two main sources of funds seem to be the tech industry—in part because of personal ties between the tech world and Buttigieg, who was one of the first 300 users of Facebook (American Prospect, 6/25/19)—and the financial industry, that traditional source of funds for corporate-oriented Democrats."
-->Is the NYT trying to "pitch" the Wall Street funded candidates over the more grassroots ones? Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting does a good job in exposing this obvious corporate bias in the mainstream media.
