Online readers SCORTCH unbelievably biased New York Times headline, article

[hillarysong2016]

These are the top rated comments...notice how many recommends!

Coverage is still bad but looking at comments, the Times headline and reporting used to be even Worse before updating this online, after exposed by readers...

The third one just smashes the Times: "So Bernie wins two of three tonight, and I get a headline that Clinton wins Louisiana with a picture of her? Is it not bad enough that the DNC wants this whole race in the bag for Mrs. Clinton? Must your paper do the same? I'm not even a registered Democrat, but please make an effort at fairer coverage."

ket
oregon 32 minutes ago

Bernie wins two out of three and still can't grab the headline?

95Recommend

Next,

Michelle
Madison 32 minutes ago

Please stop saying that Clinton has a huge lead in delegates. Superdelegates don't matter that much right now. Clinton is not that far ahead in pledged delegates. Sanders has a good chance!! Stop misleading people

79Recommended

and my favorite:

Teacher
Upstate N.Y. 18 minutes ago

So Bernie wins two of three tonight, and I get a headline that Clinton wins Louisiana with a picture of her? Is it not bad enough that the DNC wants this whole race in the bag for Mrs. Clinton? Must your paper do the same? I'm not even a registered Democrat, but please make an effort at fairer coverage.

Reply
71Recommended

More background we need to share these more specifics with people in ALL comment sections of websites, newspapers, blogs are:

Super delegate votes have not even been cast..that is a fact, not some "opinon" by Sanders supporters but the actual reality and the other fact is they can change who they vote for, and it does not have to be for who they are currently "pledged" to...

That's exactly what happened in 2008, many super delegates "pledged to Hillary Clinton" lo and behold, changed and cast their votes for Obama if, or when, they saw their districts, their states popular vote of us regular people, going to Obama.

Debbie a vlogger on youtube called The Sane Progressive on YT has spoken about how it's misleading when the media is Reporting Un-cast Super Delegate Votes as if they are final..

We need to spread this info to the uninformed, undecided, and even those currenetly supporting Clinton because of the myth of "Sanders can't win"

Shane Ryan has an article on some online magazine (Pastemagazine)about this misleading math for super-delegates. http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

The Times should report only the delegates that are written in stone: the Regular" ones not the "super-delegates" Benie was ahead of Clinton by that count, the only count that is final, when I checked a week ago..

At the very least, the Times should stop calling Clinton the "Front-runner" and give two counts: one Without the (un-cast, not yet final, and can later be changed) super-delegates, and one with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/us/politics/primary-elections.html?comments#permid=17795928:17796200

[Rebkeh]

1. As expected, we see clear attempts to control the narrative, public perception

It's so undemocratic. Journalistic integrity should be the norm, not the exception.

Does anyone care about the truth anymore?

[Hydra]

2. MSM journalism is pretty much dead

Too few companies control the airwaves and print now. That's why I originally came to DU in 2003- I couldn't get real news anywhere else.

[zentrum]

8. This is because the Clintons

…destroyed the Fairness Doctrine and allowed media conglomeration. Now there are only 5 giant media companies.

They really hurt the country and Democracy itself by doing this.

It was a devastating initiative.

[silvershadow]

11. Yes they did. nt

[Hydra]

12. Ya, I know

It was pretty bad during the Reagan years when I was growing up, too. Message control everywhere.

I realized recently that I pretty much grew up in a total propaganda environment. Terrifying to realize almost everything we see around us is a lie.

[Gwhittey]

23. Hillary would care

if you can come up with 10 million dollars to "donate" to Clinton Foundation, oh yea and she will need 3 speeches at 350K per, her rates have gone up she is now close to stealing POTUS. At that time you will get a promise to look into tell the truth, if it is not too hard to look that is. Oh and if someone does not out bid you

Thank you,
Frank William Abagnale, Jr
VP of Influence Hillary Clinton Inc.

[pangaia]

3. Even YAHOO did the same thing.. headlines CRUZER wins something BIG !!!

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP...... blah blah.....

Clinton - 10,285 delegates, Sanders - 45.. or whatever.

Makes me sick all over again..

Reminds me of China.

[Pharaoh]

4. Super delegates!

kicking for storage

[Babel_17]

5. My 2 cents (if it gets posted)

It's taking all the investment banking money, and all the party leadership, to prop Secretary Clinton up. On an even playing field with Senator Sanders she'd be toast. She's popular with the leadership because she pays back her friends, with power, influence, and money. For those leaving the game, there are jobs in the private sector. For her enemies there is payback. And like Bush the press is dealt with in a like manner. The Clintons have a list of those who cross them, and they limit their all important access. Those that gush on them are rewarded. People are seeing the flaws, and in states not under the thumb of leaders looking for favors, the voters are rising up for Sanders. That wave is spreading and it will engulf the later states. Clinton's legal problems, and the public spectacle of her ethical lapses, are becoming more serious, and much more well known. She holds Obama's legacy hostage, but that will only carry her so far with the DOJ against an FBI that has built a heck of a case against her subordinates for an incompetence that rises to a criminal level. And where does the buck stop with that? Can you run for President while claiming to be dazed and confused as to how security procedures work? The bottom line is that there is no appetite for a Secretary Clinton who has grown worse than the Senator Clinton of 2008. Especially so now that we have the Sanders campaign. She didn't kill that campaign in its cradle; now it's growing, and it won't be faced down.

Lol, had to trim the last paragraph own, I was running into the character limit. Could have used some grammatical editing but I felt an urgent desire to just post it. Lol, you know how that can be.

[platitudipus]

19. +1

You summed things up quite nicely. Logic dictates she should be polling right up there with Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee.

[xloadiex]

6. They are doing this

IMO because they know she will not win against Trump. Why else would they want to anger Bernie supporters to they point where they won't turn out for Clinton?

If anyone thinks this divide is just going on here at DU, I suggest you expand your reading to where millennials and many independents and republicans voting dem are posting. They are angry. Not only at the establishment, but at they way they and Bernie have been dismissed by MSM. If they think people are going to just fall in line, they are underestimating, just like they underestimated Bernie's campaign.

[hillarysong2016]

7. They're not trying to anger Bernie supporters, they are rooting for their favorite corporate

democrat, Hillary. Also for many of us we don't need to be made "angry" by corporate media, to not vote for Hillary if heaven forbid she won, it's enough that what I thought was a terrible candidate has more and more information come out about her that she is not just terrible, but revealed as a right-wing but pro-choice Republican who has beaten up and humiliated single mothers, killed off more women and children than any other candidate running, lied about corporate trade (said she'd oppose but leaked emails show she supported Colombia corporate "free" trade) supported NAFTA, said that was "mistake" now telling us ultra-NAFTA called TPP is "good", and in a few areas especially on middle east, the whole regime change bombing thing, she is to the right of Trump...

[840high]

9. .+1

[OZi]

10. 1% coverage for the candidate that scares the 1%. eom.

[zentrum]

13. ^Yup, that's their math.^

[Ivan Kaputski]

15. The Third Way is the 3rd party so she is a 3rd party candidate.

I wouldn't ever think of her as a real FDR Democrat. I think that is why Bernie has resisted until lately becoming a registered Democrat because they for the most part are not socialist Democrats.

[Babel_17]

22. Rubio, like Bush, got crushed, so yes, the voters aren't accepting the establishment's picks

And some of those uncommitted/swayable anti-establishment voters can be yanked away from Trump or Cruz if Bernie is our candidate.

It's plain as day what the national mood is.

[Ivan Kaputski]

14. Debbie is a member on JPR.

[hillarysong2016]

17. Really? I joined jackpineradicals recently, what's Debbie's user name there?? n/t

[ancianita]

16. Thank you. This is clear and true and needs, as you say, to get spread around!

[lexington filly]

18. And here I read & believed that pledged Super Delegate votes meant they were "pledged," forgetting

politics always trumps ethics and morality. Why do they even bother to pledges when they're sworn into Congress and other offices?

[kristopher]

20. I think there is an effect occurring that can't be measured yet.

Indignation by the powers that be at the nature of antiestablishment pressure on the right is a big part what propels Trump's base towards him IMO.

We haven't yet seen the results of very many elections in areas that are traditional Democratic strongholds. The resentment I'm seeing online and you've captured in your post seems pretty strong as far as people recognizing the unfair treatment of Sanders. I can see a possible impact from this resentment that will bend the post-March trend lines a lot more strongly in Bernie's favor than seems reasonable by normal analysis of polls. No one saw much upside potential in the polling available at the beginning of Trump's run; largely I think because their denial of voter sentiment caused them to misread the trend lines.

The other day I saw someone (Prebus?) discussing the RNC and Trump who opined they also (paraphrasing) "needed super delegates like the Dems, who had managed to contain their grassroots problem early in the process."

Maybe he's right. Between the news blackout on Bernie and the billion's in free advertising Hillary is getting it is an uphill battle to build a national sense of solidarity behind Sanders. But then again, the 1%er club that didn't foresee that the effect of their pressure on Trump would be 180 degrees from what they wanted is the same club of 'professionals' that think no one is really noticing what they are doing to Sanders.

I think they're wrong.

[pansypoo53219]

21. i have known for years, the mass media is the ENEMY of democracy. hello idiotocracy.

maybe i just need some electrolytes.