Jack Hannold writes that media companies fear Sanders as much as Wall Street firms do.
To the Editor:
The mainstream media have been less than objective in their coverage of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. A South Jersey Times Feb. 3 front-page story ("Clinton edges out Sanders to take Iowa") was no exception.
The story from the Washington Post was a follow-up to the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. It noted that Hillary Clinton was declared the official Iowa winner by 0.2 percent, but did not state that she didn't win with local majorities all of the caucus sites. Six sites were hopelessly deadlocked and decided by coin tosses, and Clinton won all six of these.
Ignoring the role of chance in Clinton's vaunted "victory" amounts to lying by omission.
If just three of those coins had landed the other way, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders could have claimed an equally meaningless victory -- though he probably wouldn't have, because, as he said, it was a virtual tie. But that outcome would have been a more accurate reflection of the two candidates' relative support, something the article's writers chose to ignore.
Bias against Sanders was also evident in the story's description of him as "the rumpled white-haired senator" who "shouted at his audience at his final campaign rally Sunday night in Des Moines."
Sanders' declamatory style, while forceful, is not strident, and -- it's appropriate to his message. Can you imagine lines like "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "I welcome their hatred" -- much less "I have a dream" -- being delivered in a quiet, conversational tone?
And the implication that Sanders is too old to be president is absurd. He's only six years older than Clinton.
Unfortunately, we'll see many more such biased stories between now and November because the corporate media fear Sanders as much as Wall Street and the rest of corporate America do.
Jack Hannold
Clayton
N.J. needs this domestic violence law
To the Editor:
I am extremely disappointed that Gov. Chris Christie last month pocket vetoed "Lisa's Law." This 2014-2015 bill would have created a pilot program in Ocean County to electronically monitor domestic violence offenders who pose a serious risk.
"Lisa's Law," A-3806, is named in memory of Letizia "Lisa" Zindell of Toms River, who was beaten and strangled by a former fiance in 2009. Its bipartisan sponsors vow to introduce a new version this year.
Christie must have lost touch with what is important here in New Jersey. Monitoring serious domestic violence offenders should not be a partisan issue, because it is a public safety issue first. That is why the bill has received support from both parties.
State Senate President Stephen Sweeney made this legislation a priority, and he and his colleagues in both parties should be proud that they supported it. In the end, it could be any of our family members who are put in harm's way, and our representatives should support common-sense ways to keep residents safe.
"Lisa's Law" is important public safety legislation and the governor is wrong to reject it.
Vicki Antonini
Gibbstown
Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com