Progressives on AIPAC’s Defeat of Bowman: “Now We Know How Much It Costs to Buy an Election”
Progressives on AIPAC’s Defeat of Bowman: “Now We Know How Much It Costs to Buy an Election”
AIPAC poured almost $15 million into elevating challenger George Latimer over Rep. Jamaal Bowman in a New York primary election.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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
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.
Write factually accurate articles with amazing investigative reporting. Should they condemn
HamasGlenn Greenwald at the beginning of every article?How about condemning him with any article? Just one.
Because right now, he seems to be an untouchable subject when it comes to criticism from them, unlike virtually everything else.
Which comment of Greenwald should they condemn exactly?
Now you want me to go through every questionable thing Greenwald has said every time he does things like go on Fox News and agree with the presenter and pick a specific one?
Okay, fine. How about when he called Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson socialists?
I'm sure The Intercept had a lot to say about that, right? No? Some other horrible stance he's taken?
I'll agree with you that his comment is far fetched. His definition of a "socialist" appears to be more related to non-interventionism.
As you had the courtesy to provide an example I did a little digging too and found that the Intercept did publish an article about Glenn which was not all that positive.
His departure appears related to his belief that The Intercept was "censoring" his political views. https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/
The articles I've read from Glenn from time to time have been accurate but it is good to know that his reporting is very selective.
Greg Palast does some great investigative journalism:
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.