The Washington Post contradicts itself

[paulthompson]

This is the main headline at the Washington Post website right now:

Sanders sweeps Democratic caucuses in three Western states

The victories in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii buoyed the senator’s insurgent challenge but did not put much of a dent in Hillary Clinton’s delegate lead.

But there's also an analysis article posted too. It says this (which by the way doesn't even include the Hawaii landslide win):

Washington was the fifth-largest state left on the calendar, and Sanders crushed Clinton. If the statewide split as it is right now holds, he'll pick up at least 50 net delegates -- a sixth of the margin between the two candidates. With what he ends up netting in Alaska, he'll almost certainly net more than 60 delegates -- a fifth. That's a big bite into Clinton's lead, and his net haul in Washington will be, by far, his biggest gain from any state.

So who to believe, the Washington Post or the Washington Post? And note that the analysis article isn't by a Sanders supporter; it's by a Clinton supporter who is trying to argue Sanders can't win the nomination. The pro-Clinton spin is so ridiculous that they can't even stay consistent.

[dchill]

1. A big bite is not much of a dent.

OK. WAPO jumps shark.

[Lorien]

3. The shark was jumped when they posted 16 anti-Bernie op-eds

16 days in a row. Desperate mouthpieces of the establishment!

[JonLeibowitz]

4. It was 16 hours, not days!

[TDale313]

2. It wasn't just the Post

That was the narrative almost word for word from print media and the cable news channels. Downplaying Sanders' wins as being nice but not putting a dent in Hillary's huge delegate lead (which more often than not they then include Superdelegates in)

[paulthompson]

5. It's as if...

It's as if the word came down from Post owner Jeff Bezos, a man worth 60 BILLION dollars, not to have any pro-Sanders headline, no matter what. I don't know if that's the case, but one could see how he could see it in his financial interest to do so.

[Babel_17]

6. Might be like Salon, the authors don't write the article title

Maybe if the title was too Sanders friendly, Clinton supporters wouldn't click. Low grade controversy, that brings people in. (The carrot and the stick)

Such is journalism today. And of course the WaPo leans towards Clinton anyway.

[bettyellen]

8. They usually don't. Interesting the headline out of Boston below us seems fairer.

[paulthompson]

11. The problem with that theory...

The problem with that theory is that the headline W. Post article was incredibly bad. It was supposed to be about the three primary results, but it gave no mention about the margin of victory in any of the three states, nor the number of delegates won by either candidate, nor the number of people who voted, nor any other solid number. It had almost no information about the actual primaries whatsoever, except bland mentions that Sanders won, like this opening paragraph.

Sen. Bernie Sanders scored victories in the Democratic caucuses in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday, three Western-states contests that the independent senator from Vermont had been favored to win.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-hopes-to-notch-three-victories-in-democratic-contests-on-saturday/2016/03/26/bba69156-f367-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html

Since it includes the fact that Sanders won Hawaii, that means it was updated many hours after the final results in the other two states were known. So the lack of any actual numbers on anything is remarkable.

Seriously, this level of propaganda reminds me of Pravada back in the Soviet Union days.

[paulthompson]

12. And get this!

I just noticed this near the end of the article:

In all cases delegates are awarded proportionally, so Clinton will still pick up delegates in contests she loses. Overall, however, her roughly 300-delegate lead over Sanders may be reduced.

"May be reduced?" Are you kidding me?! By the time Hawaii was called for Sanders, which is mentioned in the article, it was well known that Sanders gained 47 delegates on Clinton in Washington and another 10 in Alaska. Plus, the Hawaii results came in all at once, so it was immediately known he picked up another nine delegates there. Sanders cut into Clinton's lead by 66 delegates. There's no "may be" about it!

How could anybody read this article and not see it as the most anti-Sanders spin they could possibly manage?

[Babel_17]

13. In a way, that goes to my point

It's not about posting news, it's about getting people to click on links. The stories generally don't try to be comprehensive, they just leave you craving a more informative link. And they usually let you think you'll maybe get the story you want to read. If not that, they'll make it irritating enough that you're angry enough to click the link.

It's about generating clicks from people interested in the news, it's not primarily about the news.

I know I want to click on a "good link", and tomorrow I'll look for some. Did my reading today leave me satisfied I was informed? No, but it left me with an appetite for more reading. Mission accomplished!

Meh, diminishing returns for them in my case. Fool me a hundred times, shame on you, I keep queuing up for it, shame on me for not cutting the cord/finding alternate sources. lol



Tottering off to bed ....

[6chars]

7. Sanders wins 3 states; Clinton retains big delegate lead

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/03/26/sanders-seeks-caucus-trifecta-win-to-close-delegate-gap

The lead was reduced by only 65 yesterday, maybe 20%. If he had reduced by 50% or 60%, that would have been impressive.

[paulthompson]

9. Indeed!

Given that there were only 160 delegates in play yesterday, and Sanders won over 100 of them. It would have been VERY impressive for him to defy mathematics and win 200 out of 160 delegates! Sheesh!

He could only win a percent of what was being contested, and he did better than anyone expected. It was a landslide by any measure. But still, to the Post, it was not enough.

[6chars]

10. actually 142 delegates available

Sanders 104, Clinton 38.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That was not Bernie winning those States, it was Bruce Rappaport!

nt

[Vinca]

15. They must have broken the rule about no good news for Bernie in the analysis article.

The overlords will not be happy.