posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:04 PM
If you go to the
New York Times website and follow the links
that eventually lead you to the Washington Post, you will
learn details of a victory that dare not speak, in the New York Times, its name, that name being "landslide".
I'm talking about
Bernie Sanders' landslide victory over
Hillary Clinton in the Washington state presidential caucuses.
The first "results" page does not include Sanders' results. It's as if the Democratic caucuses in Washington did not exist:
www.nytimes.com...
Apparently, reading the fine print, the results of this vote are not binding, but still, not reporting the results as they stand at this moment, seems
a little disinformational to me. This is what you see if you click another link to "more detailed" results.
With Hillary Clinton's nomination a lead pipe to the cranium cinch at this point, maybe the Times just doesn't want to spoil her day by spreading news
of another meaningless Sanders victory. Shouldn't the Times simply be telling the story, warts and all? I think so. Hillary is already suffering from
the voter perception that she gets too much insider help in life and hey,
Bernie won in Washington.
edit on 25-5-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)