[Spooky23]

The problem is that Sanders is in a democratic primary. If people in the circle of democratic party thinking aren't valid sources for reporting on a democratic political candidate, who is? Clinton was the party nominee -- all of the players will have done something connected to that campaign.

The democratic party is a big-tent and demands consensus. When all of these connected folks eyeroll at the guy, it hints that he would have trouble governing. An "out-there outsider guy" persona works for the GOP because the GOP is a political machine party... some state senator from North Dakota would kill kittens on TV if instructed to.

[malvosenior]

The problem isn't that the democratic party is doing what's best for the democratic party. The problem is that The New York Times is doing what's best for the democratic party. They claim to be journalism but more and more, they are clearly biased political activism (as is the case with this story).

[Spooky23]

Who would you suggest that they talk to?

Journalists get stories, they do that by talking to people and getting information. The New York Times has a pretty obvious mainstream approach. Very few credible people in that community have anything to say about Sanders.

I didn’t notice lots of biased political activism when they were reporting on the prosecution of NY legislators and a governor. When did the switch flip?

[malvosenior]

> Very few credible people in that community have anything to say about Sanders.

He's consistently polled in the top three for the democratic primary. He's also consistently ahead of Warren who the NYT often promotes. The New York Times is trying to manufacture credibility by selectively covering candidates.