[The newspapers endorsement of both Warren and Klobuchar, said one
critic, reveals "so much about the liberal reaction to a resurgent
left, a reaction that holds Trump as an aberration and polite,
well-mannered centrism as the greatest virtue."]
[[link removed]]

'LOVE LETTER TO CAPITALISM AND WAR': PROGRESSIVE SCORN FOLLOWS NEW
YORK TIMES ENDORSEMENT  
[[link removed]]


 

Andrea Germanos
January 20, 2020
Common Dreams
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ The newspaper's endorsement of both Warren and Klobuchar, said one
critic, reveals "so much about the liberal reaction to a resurgent
left, a reaction that holds Trump as an aberration and polite,
well-mannered centrism as the greatest virtue." _

"This endorsement is climate denial," said Dr. Sandra Steingraber. ,
Wikimedia Commons

 

A flood of criticism has been directed at the _New York Times_
overnight and into Monday following its dual endorsement of Democratic
presidential candiates Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren after a week
of self-promoted hype over its process.

The _Times_ editorial board—which publicized its endorsement with
transcripts of interviews and selected video clips of candidates
throughout last week—announced its decision Sunday night at the
conclusion of an hour-long show aired on the FX channel.

But from the TV reality show-esque manner in which the board made its
announcement, to framing the two senators as "the radical and the
realist models" worthy of consideration, to whitewashing U.S. empire,
the editorial board came under fire from progressives.

The timing—Monday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day— caught the eye of
author and 350.org found Bill McKibben.

"If I were going to go all weak-kneed like the _New York Times_,"
McKibben wrote
[[link removed]] on
Twitter, "I'm not sure I would have picked the day devoted to our most
clear-eyed moral leader to do it."

It is "always worth remembering," he added, "that the _NYT_ editorial
board slammed MLK when he came out against the Vietnam War."

Progressive journalist Sarah Lazare, the web editor for_ In These
Times_, suggested the endorsement itself—which she described as "a
love letter to capitalism and war"—reveals more about the newspaper
than the two candidates it chose to back.

"The language of the _NYT_ endorsement is so violent, just casually
endorsing brutal wars and countless human deaths in the borderlands
and more deaths at the hands of a ruthless healthcare
industry—without even giving these things mention, all while
claiming the mantle of civility," Lazare added in a separate tweet.

Other critics focused on the discrepancy between the urgent action
scientists say is needed to address the climate crisis and the backing
of Klobuchar, who supports the continued use of fracked gas. Biologist
and climate activist Dr. Sandra Steingraber said the endorsement was
an act of "climate denial."

McKibben, in a Monday tweet, added
[[link removed]] that
"Because we have waited (thanks to the fossil fuel industry) so long
to get started, physics leaves us no choice but to move very swiftly.
Say, at the speed envisioned by people like Warren or Sen. Bernie
Sanders."

Countering the editorial board, who charged that Warren might too
"radical" in her climate prescriptions compared to Klobuchar, McKibben
said that Warren's more ambitious plans make her, in fact, "far more
realistic
[[link removed]]."

Dr. Leah Stokes, political science professor University of California,
Santa Barbara, said the endorsement showed the editorial board is
"still ignorant of the magnitude of the climate crisis." Her Twitter
thread added:

"First, they claim that Warren is wrong to blame fossil fuel companies
for climate change.
Who exactly should she or any other candidate blame? Have they missed
the last decade of research on climate denial funded by fossil fuel
companies? Appears so..."

"Next they say that Biden's climate agenda doesn't go far enough.
Except, his plan really isn't that different from Klobuchar's plan...
which they then praise..." Leah Stokes on Twitter

Other critics noted how voters, unlike the editorial board, don't have
the option of backing two candidates.

"The split decision between Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren makes
literal the feeling in the air that the _Times_'s endorsement directs
no one's vote," opined
[[link removed]]
Daniel D'Addario at _Variety_. "In this case, it'd be impossible to
vote for the _Times_'s slate without casting two ballots. The value of
a _Times_ endorsement, perhaps, redounds solely to the _Times_,
reflecting its vision of itself and how it wants to be seen."

Another line of criticism was the process the _Times_ used for the
affair. Media critic Adam Johnson said the paper turned "their
endorsement process into a tawdry reality TV show."

Writing at _The New Republic_, Alex Shephard said
[[link removed]]
"the _Times_ has turned the selection into a weeklong affair, a mix
between Donald Trump's The Apprentice and LeBron James's 'The
Decision.'"

At the end of the day, though, some observers suggested the
endorsement doesn't really warrant any attention all.

"Lotta people gaming out what the _NYT_ endorsement means but let's be
real," said journalist Ken Klippenstein: "nobody really gives a shit."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]