Fans of presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have criticized lots of media for either ignoring his campaign or covering it in a dismissive manner.
The New York Times‘ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, responded Wednesday to criticisms of her paper’s coverage. She noted the numbers: The Times wrote 14 articles about Sanders in August. During the same period, the paper penned 54 articles about Hillary Clinton, and 63 on Donald Trump. She wrote:
Here’s my take: The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders’ campaign by any means but it also hasn’t always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories does seem regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of it is focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style rather than what he has to say.
Sullivan’s column concluded:
The Times’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, told me recently that he wants to focus more heavily on issue stories in the coming weeks and months. Candidates like Mr. Sanders – no matter how electable they prove to be – can and should be a part of that. Times readers are completely within their rights to expect and demand it.
The vast majority of the comments on her column Wednesday continued to bash the Times over its Sanders coverage.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Yet they still use words like “electable”, as though they’re the arbiter of electability. The problem with “news” media coverage of Bernie is not just that they imply he’s not serious, it’s that they outright say he can’t win.
@Egmatic, you’re right and it’s damaging because it can dissuade caucus and primary voters who hold the keys to democratic selection of candidates, rather than party selection.