Sanders' Washington Victory "Not Fit" For New York Times

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.

a reply to: ipsedixit

"Freedom of the press"..... do you want to force the press to print articles you dictate?

a reply to: ipsedixit

There's a link right at the top to the full election results.

Perhaps because it is a non-event. Washington State has both a caucus system and a vote. Bernie won the Washington caucuses back in March. The popular vote does not count AT ALL because the Dems decided to use the caucus only. On the GOP side it DOES count, and Trump won easily. So since this took place in March, it's really old news.

originally posted by: georgeglass
a reply to: ipsedixit

"Freedom of the press"..... do you want to force the press to print articles you dictate?

The press does not print stories that will sell, they print stories that THEY want to sell.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What?

So you don't believe what you read?

I understand that some news providers are bias but in general the stories are factual.

Good luck if you rely on conspiracy sites for your news.

originally posted by: georgeglass
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What?

So you don't believe what you read?

I understand that some news providers are bias but in general the stories are factual.

Good luck if you rely on conspiracy sites for your news.

Lol. I used to work for CI overseas, there's a lot of fly sh#t in that pepper called news.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: ipsedixit
That indeed does qualify as a landslide.

It seems like Hillary has quite a big backing in certain arms of the news media.

a reply to: butcherguy

The vote total for Sanders was significantly higher that Clinton's total. It seems newsworthy to me. It suggests that Democrats may not rally around Hillary in the General Election. Her Democratic support might be softer than thought. They probably wouldn't rush to Trump but they might abstain from voting. Time will tell.

Note: Apologies. In the OP I said that the links led to the Washington Post, but it was to the complete Washington results in the NY Times. I do apologize. Things were buzzing around here when I started the thread, and I goofed up.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Hillary had big money companies behind her the whole way, including media groups.
Bernie was about as grass roots as it gets in a National campaign.