Thank you to the mods who did not permaban me for this post, as i like this site and a lot of people on it and don't think 99.9999% of people are operating on any sort of bad faith effort. I also apologize to those people whom i did not initially respond to, as i had been unaware that i had been responded to and since banned until hours afterward.
I knew i had the inherent potential to be banned before i made the post regardless of how i phrased my thoughts because we are in a thread dealing with a very delicate subject by definition, that is why i tried to cover my bases just in case. However, i have felt compelled to clarify my post much further, both in explanation of my thoughts and against the charge that i had been peddling conspiracy theories as the reason for my banning. And so, let me start.
First off, my original post specifically highlights charges of discrimination highlighted in the story of the 2016 political campaign and was not structured in any way to dismiss them. I did not charge that the accusations were made up or falsified. Indeed, any campaign can have sexual harassment and pay discrimination at any level of organization and it should be treated seriously as it is a very real thing. There is no reason from the beginning to assume that said charges were false or planted, nor any implication on my end for this, thus making any charge of peddling conspiracy theories on my end invalid.
However, the thrust of my argument in regards to the media was related specifically to the New York Times adding their own commentary to the discussion regarding the attempt to tie this story to Sanders himself, a potential 2020 bid, and a narrative of Sanders supporters in general.
Since Sanders had not actually even announced if he was even actually bidding for a Presidential run in the first place before this article was made, it is irrelevant to the discussion to tie 2020 to this story.
Additionally, the actual subject of pay discrimination and gender discrimination in general can happen in any campaign, and if its large enough, it absolutely can go unnoticed or unreported to the top, where it can then be sufficiently dealt with on a systemic level, thus even the connection between Sanders himself and the allegations are on shaky ground outside of those charges taking place inside of Sanders campaign offices.
Indeed, if we look at the article in question, it even notes buried in the text that there is no evidence that these these issues went beyond a certain level in regards to being reported for anyone to take sufficient action, and, in a large multifaceted campaign apparatus that grew so large so fast, made up of thousands upon thousands of staffers, activists and the like, these minority actions, while fully objectionable and heinous, have virtually no actual basis on the candidates themselves or the general make up of the campaign structure, or the voting bloc in question.
Looking closer, the text states, the charges of pay inequity were largely started due to Sanders staffers being able to set their own pay limits, and a number of women being paid lower compared to men due to what they requested, which was then immediately rectified when those women went back and asked for higher wages in line with their colleges.
In addition to that, the reports of women facing coercion from male colleagues are clearly horrible on the face of it, but are also an unfortunate realities of a male dominated political system and general society, and as stated before, are prone to happen in any campaign and must be dealt with appropriately.
This is why Sanders apology on behalf of those people highlighted in the 2016 campaign is pretty much all he can do as an individual on behalf of those women who were treated with disrespect, or felt disaffected, outside of a hypothetical 2020 run enforcing far stricter vetting of campaign staff, and oversight for guidelines for staffer behavior and treatment. It would take an entire cultural shift in male dominated politics to stop these things from happening in general, and i'd hope we'd start having a conversation on that general premise. It won't be the first time and it wont be the last.
My point is this. This story is not a falsehood. However the framing of said article is largely the issue i have with many media stories on progressives, the double standards of the framing is always designed to imply subtle character assassination of the targets in question rather than an fair view of the actual information gleaned and what can be done. And despite actually giving the facts of the matter, have the actual implications for the article diffused far enough into it where such contents will not be found by anyone taking a cursory glance and making a snap judgement.
Critiquing the media for weaponizing very sensitive topics like widespread gender discrimination in positions of power for things that do not directly correspond to direct and substantive charges against a politician or political group for a disingenuous narrative is a valid thing, and is certainly not a conspiracy. So my dissent of the article's content was largely based on that.
The institutional media and establishment press is not infallible, and have their unfortunate biases. And those biases, regardless of their intent can absolutely play a factor when deciding what stories to cover, when and most importantly for this article, in what fashion, coloring the readers viewpoints. A question of the patriarchal system that is clearly a real problem in America at large is far more potent to the discussion and should have been the actual commentary in the article.
With this, i hope i have given much more context on my personal view and additionally why i felt i should not have not have been banned previously.
