ACTUAL delegate counts from todays primaries?

Okay, after reading the below two articles, both from the same source (AP) they give conflicting views as to the actual delegates up for grabs today. How can this be, these writers and reporters get paid to do such a #ty job? Anyone else notice that these days, they just throw figures around expecting people to eat them up with out question? Well, in this case, I see a discrepancy, and I can not find a logical explaination as to why after reading both articles? Both seem to include those damn super delegates, so why the discrepancy? Both articles state the same count for Vermont (15) and Rhode Island (21) but differ on Texas (228 vs 193) and Ohio (164 vs 141)! This is "make or break" right? So why is the SAME news source feeding the public ALTERNATING figures in seperate articles?

428 according to this
apnews.excite.com...

370 according to this
apnews.excite.com...

Well, after 80 minutes, I am going to answer my own question. Because they can, with no oversight there is no repercussions! No one (other than me) sees this as a little strange and begs to have a resolution in the matter. So they can do whatever they like including feeding the public ALTERNATING figures in seperate articles? Why not, no one seems to wave a flag. Wake up people, this is just utter crap we accept this level of journalism, and this isn't even coming from FAUX News!!

reply to post by percievedreality


Damn straight!

The MSM can report any lies they want as "news" and there's not much we can do about it.

But here's the deal; did you know it's perfectly legal to lie and distort the facts and present this offal as "news?"

Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:59 AM
Subject: FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE

On February 14, a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organization lying, concealing or distorting information. The court reversed the US$425,000 jury verdict of 2000 that was in favor of journalist Jane Akre, who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

Source | netfeed.com | TV network LIES to public FOX news's Rupert Murdoch

But a recent poll has some encouraging results; more people are turning to the internet as their prime news source, especially those under thirty:

The survey finds the Internet not only outweighs television, radio, and newspapers as the most frequently used and important source for news and information, but Web sites were also cited as more trustworthy than more traditional media sources - nearly a third (32%) said Internet sites are their most trusted source for news and information, followed by newspapers (22%), television (21%) and radio (15%).

Zogby International

I can vouch for the above; I currently have 32 different news and opinion sites logged in my bookmarks, and I'm constantly adding more.

It's vitally important to know where your news comes from; if you're getting your news online from the same five corporate sources as the MSM, you're not any better informed than the old fogies who read the paper and consume the tv "news."

And the MSM can legally lie and distort the facts...and figures.