1956: Bernie Sanders, Running Hard

Just some words of clarification about cross country running, and Bernie's time and place in this long ago race. (FWIW, I ran x-country at Francis Lewis High in the early 60's ran weekly in Van Cortland Park during the season.)

Cross country is a team sport, with an individual's time used as a measure of the team's performance.

Typically each team has 7 runners, with only 5 of them having their time count toward the team score. In cross country, the lowest team score is the winner.

So, if your team had finishers at 1,2,3,4, +5th place, your team score would be 15, and you would be the winners.

The Van Cortland cross country course starts off in a wide open field, with runners lined up across an extremely long starting line. (15 teams x 7 runners means that 105 runners are on the starting line at once.)

All run across the large field, then begin a climb up a "cow path", then run across a foot bridge into and then out of the woods, eventually racing toward the finish line at the other end of the field. By this time, after 2.5 miles, the runners are pretty well strung out and typically finish in near single file, as they do in a marathon.

Bernie's time -very good for a freshman or sophmore - had him at 15th place in his race (out of 105 runners.)

He was 34th over all in the 3 races. With 43 schools competing there were likely just about 300 runners participating.

This is, indeed, a sport that both takes and helps develop guts and stamina.

Go, Bernie - go.

Running builds character. I am planning to vote for Bernie Sanders. The fact that he ran track and field in high school seals the deal for me.

I'm impressed that Bernie ran 15:18 at VCP. That must have been his sophomore year. That's not bad. Especially for 1956.

A lot of us Times readers are fans of Bernie. Let the other media cover the creepy Trump's idiotic nonsense. Bernie has something important to say.

With all due respect, how is this news? We rely on the Times for high quality and fair coverage. Bernie Sanders is a serious contender in this race. What's more, he deserves current and timely coverage of events relevant to the campaign or even an interesting profile pieces. What the American public doesn't need is to read an inaccurate review of a foot race that happened 50 years ago and subsequently required a correction. Do the quality work that we all believe in you for, NYT Team! Help us make good decisions in the upcoming election with well-written and reported coverage that matters. Thank you.

I back Bernie including financially. He is a great guy and leader. Only problem is he isn't electable. My hope is that he makes a point.

When Bernie starts criticizing Hillary, his main opponent, he will have to be taken seriously. Until he takes that step, his campaign will never be considered as "real."

Really NYT get your head out of the sand and give Bernie the coverage he deserves. I may, after 50 years, have to find another news source.

NYT: You have largely ignored Bernie Sanders during this campaign. When you do cover him you have attempted to diminish his candidacy.

Sanders (1) is leading in New Hampshire and Iowa, (2) is closing the gap nationally despite the fact that Clinton has name recognition, (3) has received donations from more than 500,000 contributors (more than any candidate), and more than one million donations, and (4) has had about 150,000 people attend his rallies, and more than 100,000 people attend 3,700 gatherings across the country to listen to Sanders broadcast his message online.

Sanders deserves more front page coverage and certainly much better than this piece. Campaign coverage should be about the issues, issues, issues. You should be EMBARASSED.

As many readers point out, the only thing noteworthy in this silly "news" article is what it shows about the NY Times editorial bias: that Donald Trump gets daily front-page recognition as a serious political contender on the national stage (which he is, for better or worse), while Bernie Sanders (who is also a serious contender on the national stage) gets treated by the editors as a minor league 2nd stringer. It reflects a deep antithesis of the American ruling elite (even those 'liberals' running the NY Times ) against anything genuinely Progressive, even a moderate democratic socialist who advances policies proven in Europe, policies that have resulted in western Europe becoming a much nicer place to live at the start of the 21st Century than is America for most of its citizens.

I support the voices above. I'm not adding any new insight to this roster, but I feel it is imperative for the staff at the NYT to realize that the subscriber base has MANY readers who are pro-Sanders. We don't take kindly to the 'second-class' treatment he has been receiving. You need to stop presenting Sanders as an outsider. He is a legitimate candidate running for the highest office in our nation and you must treat him as such.

NYT...your subheadline reads, "This feature looks at some of the earliest mentions of famous names or terms in The Times. Have an idea for someone or something you would like to read about? Leave a suggestion in the comments section."

Here is my comment:

I won't even be bothered reading this fluff piece on Bernie...and as I read other comments from readers of this so-called newspaper...my intuition is correct about its content.

NYT you need to cover the PRESENT TENSE with Sen. Sanders...and his lead in the polls which you refuse to acknowledge and you continue to black him out of REAL news and publish this fluff continuously...

We don't want Biden, we don't want other demos...we want Sen. Sanders who is running as a DEMOCRAT. He is THE Democrat!

People forget mass media polls, the real scoop on polls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/polls-show-bernie-sanders-winn...

I remember how the NYT covered Al Gore when he ran for President against Bush Jr. The Grey Lady didn't like Gore. There was even an NYT editorial supporting the nonsensical Republican accusation that he tended to fib a lot.

Now I see the same pattern in the NYT's coverage of Bernie. The Newspaper of Record dislikes Bernie intensely. And it shows in the biased reporting.

For those commenters who think they can write in and effect some change, I say save your breath. This newspaper is never going to stop looking down its nose at Bernie. They simply have a visceral distaste for scruffy liberal outsiders.

I noted the correction that he didn't finish last. But was this article changed in any other way - was more of his public career added? It seems very different in tone from yesterday.

Mr. Trump was given everything by his father and was bailed out at every turn. Mr. Sanders struggled for everything and knows what it is to fail, but picked himself up and kept on running.

So who here is the man of the people and who knows better the struggles of the little man? Money may buy this election, but I believe Mr. Sanders can not be bought.

We are still not getting proper coverage of the Sanders campaign. It is being treated like a novelty and not a serious enterprise.

There will be a HUGE Bernie event in Boston on Saturday, 3 October.
Boston Convention and Exhibition Center
415 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210

RSVP Here
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/4vdkw

Wonder if the NYT will ignore it.

It is not often I come to the rescue of NYT...but it is possible that in their own hamfisted way they were attempting to draw a picture of a man who doesn't quit, no matter what the odds, and in the end is rewarded by winning an election to the office of mayor by only 10 votes...and the rest is history!

The NYT seems enthralled by a reality show personality turned wannabe politician, but practically ignores a strong contender who already has a long track record of achievement in the political arena. You ought to be reporting on sixty year-old Trump trivia and tell us more about Bernie Sanders' unconventional (no PAC money!) and successful campaign for the presidency.

Someone needs to ask BridgeAnne d’Avignon, the girl who discovered that 42 of the 43 US Presidents are related to England's King John I, where Bernie fits in. Or Hillary. While she's at it maybe she could run down the list of occupants currently riding in the Republican clown bus. Somewhere in there is the next President of the United States. The billions of dollars saved could then be put to good use.

It burns my toast that a buffoon who is completely unqualified to be President gets a great, long, lovingly illustrated article when the man who could beat him 52% to 36% according to the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/15398%20NBCWSJ%20S...
gets a squib about bringing up the rear in a high school track race decades ago. The Times will never convince the tea-types by trumpeting Trump that they're fair and balanced, but their regular readership is left to wonder why a serious, legitimate, fully qualified candidate gets almost no reportage, much less a puff-piece like the one Trump got today.

That 1957 third place showing was apparently the last time that the Times's coverage of Sanders wasn't in the service of their ideological commitment to the rule of the 1%. The Times headline from Sanders's first election as Mayor of Burlington says it all: "VERMONT SOCIALIST PLANS MAYORALTY WITH BIAS TOWARD POOR."

Imagine a world in which the Times reported the election of Michael Bloomberg with a headline that read" "NEW YORK CAPITALIST PLANS MAYORALTY WITH BIAS TOWARDS THE RICH." To be fair though, that would be a dog bites man story, wouldn't it?

Please correct this- Bernie did not finish "dead last"- far from it most likely! The report must have only listed the top 15.
The team scores beneath the individual finishes indicate that this was a large invitational in which team scores are the aggregate place finishes of the top 5 runners on each team! 15:18 is a fantastic high school time, working out to just under 5 minutes per mile.

I agree RLS and would like to add to your point: every major media outlet has failed to adequately cover Bernie’s campaign and his platform. It’s disgraceful that THIS is the coverage he is receiving from the NYT. In that regard, this feeble attempt at humor concerning a serious presidential candidate, who is not being covered otherwise, is far from amusing for this reader. How can one explain the lack of coverage and the limp excuses (we'll look into it) from the public editor, Margaret Sullivan? Money rules?

Bernie Sanders did NOT finish last in that 1956 cross country race. The article only listed the top 15 runners in the race, as can be deduced by the team scores. It appears Bernie ran very well, in fact.

Just to correct the interpretation of the information presented on the cross country race: Bernie Sanders did not come in dead last in the race. The article listed the top 15 runners among many, and Sanders came in 15th.

You cannot say that Bernie didn't have some hard knocks growing up and making it to where he now is. I like people who know what defeat looks and feels like because it usually makes for some humility when they finally break through. GO, BERNIE, GO.

And critics say the Times isn't covering Sanders in a substantive way.

''Unabashed socialist' … the Times doesn't give up in its tilt towards HRC. As Bernie has always said, unabashedly, 'democratic socialist' & specifically pointed out those Social Democratic countries he believes are sound models, as in Scandinavia. Instead the Times prefers, as does the Hillary campaign, to play the Joe McCarthy dirty smear game against Sanders.

Keep going Bernie, don't even ignore them.

Politics aside, it's not accurate to say Sanders finished "dead last" in his first race. Far from it. Given the number of schools competing, Sanders likely finished 15th out of a field of hundreds, not out of a field of 15.

Unlike many other Sanders supporters, I have not been convinced that the Times editors are biased against him, but I guess they were right: this scurrilous piece removes all doubt. It is of zero news interest, and is totally meaningless in the larger context of Sanders's life and career. It serves only to introduce a tainted and loaded metaphor ("lost race") into the public discourse surrounding his candidacy.

Beyond that, all the other First Glimpses items that deal with the public figures seem to reflect positively on that figure. (And they deal with the person's actual career--not an irrelevant high school sports meet.) Shame on the Times. I would like the Public Editor to weigh in.

The only candidate who can Make America Great Again is Bernie Sanders, everyone else is a puppet.

The current interpretation by the Times is wrong. Bernie is listed as 15th in the race. His time of just over 15 minutes is just over 6 minutes a mile on the fairly challenging Van Cortlandt Park course. I ran Van Cortlandt several times as a Long Island cross-country runner, and my best time (usually mid to late in the "pack") was in the high 16's. Most Van Cortlandt races go off with hundreds of runners, and judging by the team scores for this one (where a team gets the places of its top five runners summed, and low scores win), there were at least 3747 runners (which does seem high, but that's what the team scores add up to!) in Bernie's race. Kind of makes 15th a pretty good performance...
Doesn't fit the story line--I'm sorry.

Based on the team scores, it looks like there were closer to 86 runners in Bernie's race. 15th place running 6:07 pace is fantastic for a freshman on the tough Van Cortlandt course.

What's wrong with you people at the NYTimes? Is this all of the coverage you will give a candidate that is clearly nipping at the heels of the front runner of the Democrat party? While you try to ignore the facts, Bernie Sanders will take the country by storm whether you choose to report it or not.

An interesting insight, NYT. But the only mention of him on your current website? Your continued indifference to readers' complaints as expressed through the Public Editor's page is journalistic malpractice. We aren't looking for an endorsement or favoritism, just recognition that as a serious candidate his campaign merits more than an occasional mention. What will you do if the national polls show him to be the front-runner as he is in Iowa and NH? Not report them?

Bernie Sanders transformed Burlington into one of the most livable small cities in the country. No one thought Sanders had a chance of winning the 1981 mayoral election. Sanders put together a coalition of workers, unions, environmentalists, low-income organizations, women’s groups, and college students. Coalition politics of bringing people together around a progressive agenda is the reason why Sanders is surging in the polls during this presidential campaign.

Voter turnout nearly “doubled” when Sanders ran for reelection in 1983. When you show people that you will represent them and not just the big money interests, and that government can work for them, they will turn out to vote in large numbers. As Sanders has pointed out, the Republicans did not win the 2014 midterm elections, the Democrats lost because voter turnout was abysmally low (37 percent).

Sanders won his senate reelection with 71 percent of the vote in 2012, receiving about 25 percent of the Republican vote. There is no question that Sanders would win by a wider margin in the general election than a corporatist like Hillary, as he would garner support from more Independents, some Republicans, and those who typically vote third party or stay home because Washington does not represent them.