March 28, 2016

Media unimpressed as Sanders barely gets seventy percent of vote

Source: New Yorker

"The major cable networks briefly mentioned Sanders’s vote tallies in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii but noted that he ran out of steam well shy of eighty per cent."

"A spokesperson for CNN could not be reached for comment, as the network was busy preparing a ninety-minute special on the birth of Donald Trump’s new grandchild."

<Satire obviously...>

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/media-unimpressed-as-sanders-barely-gets-seventy-per-cent-of-vote

March 17, 2016

I'm not necessarily jumping on board the Google conspiracy... but can someone else check this out?

Recently, I watched an old Daily Show clip that talks about the Clinton Foundation and their tax troubles. (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/sx65zl/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-hillary-s-democratic-opponent---dirty-donating ) This was with Jon Stewart, before his departure. I thought, hey, maybe I'll read some articles about that.

Try this out, just to confirm this for me?

Google news search for: "Clinton foundation" "tax returns". Third link down, it says "Explore in depth (115 more articles)".
But try clicking on that... Or the 5th link down that has 77 articles.

Nothing to see there...

Personally, I can't say I've seen this problem before. But maybe I just don't search old news.

Can someone else think of a good control search from that time period to see if that is a normal occurrence?

I actually like Google... I don't want to believe it. Seriously. Thanks for your help.

March 16, 2016

Media matters folks: How the NYT sandbagged Bernie Sanders

There is an interesting article in Rolling Stone online about a "bait and switch" story in the NYTimes. I actually noticed this go down on my own before I saw this. It shocked me.

The article was originally a rare, positive one about Bernie Sanders. I thought it presented some good facts and even sent it to a few people who weren't sure Bernie ever did anything in Congress.

Then a day later (I think) they changed the title and rewrote parts of the story. Even if you read the story now, you can see there are sections that seem like editorial amendments rather than fitting with the tone of the story.

Gross.

Here's a video and a story about the change:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315

Here's the "new" version of the article, with footnote at the bottom as to how it was edited.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=1