But first, did you listen to Bernie Sanders in the 10 minute segment? Because that's kinda important.
The article was so awkwardly specific that it introduced Sanders: "Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist running for the Democratic nomination, argued that he has taken a strong stance on stricter gun laws."
Hey, it even has an editor's comment: "Note: This article has been updated to reflect that Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist."
whooo. shades of "Joe" McCarthy, maybe, but not so far from reality that it doesn't seem natural.
"self-described", no less.
I think that's bad writing/reportage - but maybe that's just me being picky. I think a better writer/reporter would expend a small paragraph to actually explain what "democratic socialist" means, according as the candidate's "self-description".
Lemme go on. The reporter introduces her own opinion in the guise of some kind of fact:
"In the past, Sanders' position on guns has been described as moderate given Vermont's hunting culture."
Maybe "anonymous sources" provided those descriptions. Or just "I heard it on the social media". Cool. It's now laid down as "fact", because it "has been described".
What "hunting culture" is it that Vermont has that doesn't exist in, for example, British Columbia, Canada - where I reside? Where even our "gun nuts" are appalled at the unregulated US environment. Where the extreme problem that you have down there doesn't exist.
Of the whole scope of issues that Sanders discussed in the 10 minute interview, the reporter focused on just one segment.
All I can say as an onlooker from Canada is that the USA has a problem with violence. With a culture that considers violence to be a solution. "Stand your ground", "American exceptionalism", ...
And the USA doesn't want to deal with it. To recognize it and correct it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
