REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN’S Tuesday upset defeat by Westchester County Executive George Latimer generated many perspectives on what exactly precipitated his downfall.
The New York Times published the headline “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — before swapping it out for “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.” Other coverage emphasized that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s spending wasn’t the only factor in the race and that Bowman’s flaws made him particularly vulnerable, as did changed district lines that made his reelection even tougher.
Progressive strategists, however, had a much more clear takeaway from the results.
“You don’t drop $15 million on an election if your positions are popular,” said Eva Borgwardt, national spokesperson for the Jewish advocacy group IfNotNow, which endorsed Bowman. “This was an act of desperation from a pro-war lobby that is at odds with the majority of Americans, including American Jews.”
Borgwardt was referring to nearly $15 million spent on the race by AIPAC, the Israel lobby’s flagship in the U.S. Millions more poured in from AIPAC-aligned groups and donors, bringing the outside spending total to around $25 million.
When people talk about the New York Times’ neoliberal bias, this is what we’re talking about. Lots of people won’t notice because it’s relatively subtle, but it is absolutely biased against progressives/actual liberals.
The New York Times published the headline “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — before swapping it out for “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.”
This is why we need more independent outlets like The Intercept. This shit needs to be called out.
Checking out the intercept, thanks for the tip. Any other good sources?
Here’s a few good ones.
The Bureau of Investgative Journalism
The Economist (requires a subscription)
I’ll enthusiastically second ProPublica. They’ve been absolutely killing it lately. They’re the gold standard of investigative journalism.
Greg Palast does some great investigative journalism:
The American Prospect has some pretty good analysis as well.
The problem with The Intercept is that it was founded by Glenn Greenwald, who is constantly not only going on right-wing media, but often agreeing with their terrible points.
So I don’t trust it a lot of the time.
I don’t doubt what they are saying in this case, however.
Disagreeing with one of the founders which doesn’t work there anymore means it’s untrustworthy? If you believe The Intercept is a “right wing propaganda outlet” you’d better to cite examples of that than what you think of an ex-employee.
What has The Intercept done since then to regain my trust? Because I certainly haven’t heard them disavow or criticize their founder.
I totally agree about Greenwald, but he was pushed out/resigned in 2020, he has nothing to do with them anymore. When he co-founded it, he was still a well-respected journalist. He isn’t anymore, but The Intercept still does exceptional journalism. I recommend taking another look.
he hasnt been involved for quite some time IIRC
While I agree, The Intercept has its own problems. Yes the NYT slant-a-palooza is always bad, but the Independent is not without problems.
See: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/ for a detailed breakdown
Analysis / Bias The Intercept has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, such as this New Yorker article that reads, “Greenwald’s focus on “deep state” depredations has exiled him from MSNBC but has given him a place on Fox News.”
Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald has criticized MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for turning into an “utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack.” Greenwald says this criticism has led to the end of his appearances on MSNBC. Greenwald often criticized left-leaning media coverage of Trump-Russia collusion, namely CNN, MSNBC, and CBS, arguing that “very little evidence supported the idea that Moscow was hot for Donald.”
However, The Intercept is harshly critical of Donald Trump and right-wing policies with articles such as this: Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Culmination of War on Terror Mentality but Still Uniquely Shameful. In review, The Intercept publishes articles with strongly emotionally loaded language, such as “The Ignored Legacy of George H.W. Bush: War Crimes, Racism, and Obstruction of Justice” and “The 10 Most Appalling Articles in the Weekly Standard’s Short and Dreadful Life.”
The Intercept rejects mainstream establishment politics in favor of progressive liberalism with this pro-Bernie Sanders quote: “ignore the opinion polls and the bogus arguments against him: whether you like him or not, Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner right now,” from “Critics Say Bernie Sanders Is Too Old, Too White, and Too Socialist to Run for President in 2020. They’re Wrong.”
Regarding sourcing, The Intercept always uses credible sources such as The Economist, The Hill, Politico, NYMag, and the Washington Post.
In general, The Intercept provides in-depth investigative stories that are sensational in nature. Most stories are critical of the right-left establishment and lean strongly progressive left in ideology.
Yeah I appreciate this take, and I think it’s still mostly accurate, but Glenn Greenwald was pushed out from The Intercept in 2020, when his weird political transformation became apparent. I was very sad to see his weird red-pilling, I really respected the way he handled the Snowden leak. Can’t really take him seriously anymore though. I don’t think they have anyone with his bizarre beliefs on staff anymore.
Yeah I think that was my main reservation, and he’s been gone a few years now. But it was a little while - in the fuckstormchaos of 2017-2020 - where you’d see a theindependent link and it was straight garbage. It’s hopefully much better now.
Where are the problems?
All I see is typical MBFC bias. The opinion of some rando (MBFC being the opinion of one person mind you) rating them on the internet is not signs of a problem with them.
I think it’s kind of impressive that even with his obvious vulnerability they still needed to blow the campaign out of the water with the money they spent. Progressivism is popular. Working for the people is popular.
It’s almost as though the wants, needs, opinions, or desires of the people don’t matter. How about that.
Someone please jeer at this asshole when he next has a public appearance. Being bought by foreign interests is the worst kind of selling out.
Why does this guy look like Hitler wearing fake tan?
With derp eyes.
Googly eyes on a puppet.
Did that guy’s eyes actually look like that or is that like multiple images stitched together? Maybe he’s a robot?
Just googled think he just has an eye pointing thingy. Weird I didn’t notice it in the ads here in NYC though.
I’m guessing it’s image manipulation, but he might actually have a eye pointing disorder. hehe
Maybe it’s a glass eye prosthetic?
Maybe it’s Maybelline
He’s that skin suit alien from the first MIB
Garbage…AIPAC isn’t what beat him. His own mouth did. He was losing by10 points before AIPAC was even involved
And yet they felt it was necessary to spend $15 million on a primary that he was winning by 10 points. Sure, buddy.
That’s just the facts bud
I don’t think you understand what a fact is, ‘bud.’ I think there are quite a few basic things that you do not understand.
Latimer wasn’t even in the race when AIPAC got involved. They reached out to him before he even announced his candidacy. It’s possible he could’ve won without their help, but don’t make up imaginary poll numbers to try to bolster your argument.
