Serious question re Capehart.

[SusanCalvin]

In his follow-up, he says:

This was after officials at the University of Chicago confirmed to me that the caption on the 1962 photo was changed in January from Sanders to Rappaport after a number of alumni came forward last year to insist that the young man in question was not the former but the latter.

If *this* January, I find the timing suspect. Or was it last? (I vaguely recall hearing the caption change happened some time ago.) But then why this sudden interest *last* January or earlier?

Anybody happen to know some backstory (plus the timing), just for my curiosity?

ETA link to follow-up, plus statement that not contacting original photographer before first piece was pretty unprofessional.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/13/bernie-sanders-and-the-clash-of-memory/

[Jarqui]

1. If it was January, it had to be 2015 or before

because I looked at this issue in November 15 and the Rappaport thing was going on then

[bravenak]

2. You know this is a stupid distraction from the actual primary push, right?

This, John Lewis, it will be somebody every few days until super Tuesday. It's almost like falling for the okey doke.

[SusanCalvin]

3. Well, I happen to be interested in this particular thing.

I can multitask....!

[bravenak]

6. Ok. It looks bad from outside.

we, us black folks are stuck on reading the filthy comments made to him on his pages while bernie supporter are doing this.
I am not trying to stop you anymore. Handle.

[SusanCalvin]

10. I know, and I did not mean to diminish.

Him? His pages? Who? John Lewis, one initially assumes? Or...?

[bravenak]

16. Capehart

But Lewsis too. That's FAR WORSE and racist thing are tossed casually at him. It looks bad. The things being said To him are far worse than him not giving bernie deference. It looks like a planta

[SusanCalvin]

18. That stinks.

In spite of my current opinion re Capehart, I wish things could be kept civil. And certainly with regard to Rep. Lewis.

Thank you for still speaking to me....!

[bravenak]

20. I wish too

[Beowulf]

14. It is a distraction but I don't think it is stupid.

It's important to me that the people who push this kind of crap into political discourse be identified and called out. When they pull it again, and they will pull it again, perhaps a few more people will consider the source. It doesn't appear that the campaign is spending much energy on it, but the beauty of the net and especially social media is that others can do the pushing back.

[bravenak]

21. If they could push back in a civil way i would say nothing

[Beowulf]

26. good point!

[kristopher]

37. I refer you to Judith Miller...

different only in degree of damage, not willingness to prostitute their profession.

[UglyGreed]

4. I checked the University of Chicago

website after this story was posted on Time's website a few months ago and it was still captioned as Bernie Sanders at that time. I'm going to say this was two to three months ago and I posted it here on DU.

[UglyGreed]

7. here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251803287

[SusanCalvin]

8. Thank you very much for kindly satisfying my curiosity.

[UglyGreed]

11. You're welcome

[Ino]

5. January 2016

stripping the sentence down: "caption was changed in January ... after alumni came forward last year"

If they came forward LAST year, it would have to be the January AFTER last year... hence, this year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I think Capehart got caught in a smear, and now has no clue how to dig himself out of it

it's easy, it's called a retraction. Strangely enough those are some of the hardest things to do in the news business.

And if I am to ask for motives, well, let's put it this way... he got caught with his hands in the cookie jar. I think there is a paper in this for an enterprising History student who is also majoring in journalism though.

[Avalux]

12. I can't take Capehart seriously; he dug a huge hole for himself.

His tweets today are of a man who is trying to figure out a way to write a follow-up piece that continues to cast doubt on the photo, even after the photographer spoke out. All Capehart cares about right now is saving his own ass.

Either he's a completely incompetent journalist who didn't do his research before writing, or he knowingly helped a swiftboat attempt at Sanders.

[Downwinder]

33. He could do a followup on Cook.

[SusanCalvin]

44. Now there's a great idea!

[senz]

50. Do you know that Capehart's partner works for the HRC campaign?

[Avalux]

56. Yes, sure do. I was being generous by suggesting he's merely incompetent. n/t

[Fumesucker]

13. Forget it Jake, it's DU and it's going to be all SCOTUS all the time now

They got a wild card and don't have to talk about this any more, no one will care.

If I was a little more conspiratorially minded, well.

[treestar]

15. Honestly why is this such a big deal to DU?

So what if it's not Bernie? Doesn't prove a thing one way or the other. Bernie could have been doing work on civil rights without ending up in a photo. No one can use it being someone else to prove Bernie didn't do anything.

[cali]

17. The big deal is in your face obvious.

[treestar]

54. Not really

Seriously so it is not Bernie ? That doesn't mean Bernie didn't work on civil rights. Working yourselves up over nothing. How would Bernie face a Republican if this kind of thing is so upsetting?

[SMC22307]

55. This is good practice for the Republicans... bring it on.

So far nothing Camp Weathervane has flung is sticking. You think she would have learned her fucking lesson in 2008.

[Luminous Animal]

57. If you spend some time reading comments on news sites or other blogs and the name Bernie

comes up, there is a flood of Hillary supporters claiming that Bernie is a liar and a hypocrite and citing the photo.

That is why it is a big deal. The lie was told and it is not going back into the bottle.

And, by the way, it is Bernie.

[treestar]

58. Oh poor Bernie

So this whole thing is about how Bernie is a victim of Hillary supporters out there saying he'd not the one in the photo? What difference does it make whether he is or not? Nobody cares. Nobody's going to change their vote over it or base their vote on it.

[Matariki]

60. Oh poor Treestar

This whole this is about Republican style dirty tricks. Try to keep up

[Luminous Animal]

62. They are calling him a liar and a hypocrite. It is quite simply swift boating which Skinner

acknowledges. If you are comfortable with your side using swift boat tactics, then you would also have to agree that it was okay to besmirch John Kerry using the same by the Bush campaign.

[Matariki]

59. Yep. Capehart called Bernie's integrity into question in his article because of this.

Attack your opponents' strengths. Bernie's strength is his integrity.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Here is timeline as I understand.

Last November a Univ of Chicago alumnus named Sharon(?) Cook talked to the archivist claiming the photo was Rappaport. She was a student at that time. I've seen mentioned that this Ms Cook is a Clinton supporter, but no proof. U of C contacted Rappaport's widow, who said it was him, and a few other students stepped forward and said it was him. IDK if these identifications were independant. Based on this info, in January the archivist changed the identification of the person in the photo. The photo was then used in a Swiftboat smear orchestrated by the Clinton campaign. The 'journalist' who reported the story only 'interviewed' these witnesses, and made no effort to contact the actual photographer, who is alive and readily contacted. The photographer checks his records...the standing subject and sitting subject were from the same roll of film, as were unpublished out takes from that roll, and the film was recorded as being of the same subject, Bernard Sanders, who was the organizer of the sit-in. With that info, the U of C archivist changed the photo cation back to Bernard Sanders.

[SusanCalvin]

22. You know, I just glommed onto the main point -

I can be a little slow sometimes...

U of C DIDN'T CHECK WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER EITHER! (Apparently.)

It's a carnival of incompetence!

[HooptieWagon]

24. Not sure.

They may have, but if they did they only asked for his verbal statement, not for him to check his records. He went back into his records just a day ago. Photojournalists keep pretty accurate records.

[SusanCalvin]

25. But would he have said it was the other guy

Without checking his records? Tend to doubt it...?

[HooptieWagon]

36. The photographer has always said it was Sanders.

If the archivist questioned him, they didn't believe him nor asked about his records. He (photographer) may not have even known about the decision to alter the caption...he may have been asked, gave his answer, and no futher contact. IDK.

[SusanCalvin]

40. So any way UofC stepped in it. nt

[SMC22307]

43. This isn't "incompetence," this is all CAREFULLY orchestrated.

And there's no better site than DU to cut through the swiftboating bullshit.

[SusanCalvin]

45. Could be, but

When a librarian gets caught up in it, I call it malfeasance or incompetence.

[SMC22307]

48. I need to know more about the archivist.

But in the matter of what -- a month? -- the caption has been changed back to reflect Sanders. That could very well be incompetence, but at the Frizell, Tweety, and Capehart level, it's Corporate Media-coordinated.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

23. Now he's playing victim @CapehartJ

After he and Matthews trolled Bernie on national TV, Capehart is playing the victim card. This is the lamest story to ruin your career over, dude!

[HooptieWagon]

28. He just has sadz that he was caught,...

...and now has the reputation of a liar and a hack. Well,dude, when you sleep with the dogs you get fleas. Maybe he should have thought things through a bit better before agreeing to become a propagandist hit-man.

[valerief]

27. Doesn't Capehart's boyfriend work for Clinton? Isn't that enough to recuse him

from reporting on stuff like this?

[HooptieWagon]

29. Yes. Nick Schmit. Clinton staffer.

Yes, if Capehart had integrity he would have stepped aside. But he didn't have integrity, so stepped in it.

[SusanCalvin]

30. There's a lot of that going around. nt

[JI7]

31. Capehart's boyfriend is some Italian guy

[HooptieWagon]

38. No. Clinton staffer. Nick Schmit.

http://capitolfile-magazine.com/inside-jonathan-capehart-and-nick-schmits-house

[JI7]

41. i wonder why other sources say it's the italian guy

but yeah , both seem to come up as being in a relationship with him.

[HooptieWagon]

49. Maybe he's two-timing?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

34. The exact word I was using this morning. Not sure it applies outside of court. Maybe conflict of...

interest. But whatever the case, MSNBC would be short handed if they recused everyone with a conflict of interest:
Andrea Mitchell
David Gregory
Jonathan Capehart

[Snotcicles]

32. I love the smell of failed, Historical Revisionism. nt

[SMC22307]

35. You're right to question the swiftboating of Sanders, no matter how much...

Camp Weathervane protests.

[HooptieWagon]

46. Yep. The spinmeisters are squealing about being berned.

Trying to deflect now.

[SMC22307]

52. It doesn't matter, see, because no one need show deference to Sanders.

Or the ol' canard about meanie online commenters. I skimmed the first couple of WaPo pages and none of the comments had to do with race, orientation, or that Phucker Carlson-esque bowtie. Capehart was attacked because of his sloppy "journalism."

[passiveporcupine]

61. Exactly

If they weren't bothered so much by the fact this got debunked, and quickly, they wouldn't be trying to hard to convince us it's a nothing story...nothing to see here...move along!

[K Gardner]

39. It was last month at the behest of

Alumni Sally Cook.
It has now been returned to its original state.

[Mike Nelson]

42. Bernie and Bruce were there...

...they were on the good side of history...everyone should let this go... the photos look like both of them, so it's understandable the photographer and the wife think it's one or the other.

[SusanCalvin]

47. Yes, but the photographer is the one with the records. nt

[SMC22307]

53. In what world do people believe Bernie and Bruce Rappaport switched clothing?

?w=640&h=428

?w=640&h=444

Ooh, I hadn't seen this:



Arrested, too. Reminds me of Reverend Barber's (NC NAACP) Moral Mondays protesters willing to be arrested:



http://vetsforbernie.org/2016/02/yes-bernie-sanders-protested-for-civil-rights/

[snowy owl]

51. Everyone in beltway media is in the pockets of Clinton. Everyone!