Shame on the media

Very disappointed that the AP chose to declare Hillary the winner in the eve of the final six primary/caucuses. This early call achieved NOTHING productive except to disenfranchise millions of voters. Really upsetting that we have no protection or recourse against such overeach by organizations of such power and influence.  

+100

And the declaration was fraudulent.

Promoted by the same people who promoted the lies about WMDs:

I don't understand.  Did the AP take away your right to vote.  If voters let this AP announcement change the way they will vote today, they hardly deserve the right to vote anyway.

And then there is this from the obviously biased and rigged FiveThirtyEight website.

Hillary Clinton Will Be Nominated Because More Democrats Are Voting For Her

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/

luigi said:

Very disappointed that the AP chose to declare Hillary the winner in the eve of the final six primary/caucuses. This early call achieved NOTHING productive except to disenfranchise millions of voters. Really upsetting that we have no protection or recourse against such overeach by organizations of such power and influence.  

What's there to be ashamed about?

The media stated factually and correctly that Clinton now has enough pledged and super delegates committed to her to clinch the nomination.

Did you expect the media to suppress this relevant news? Most would like to be informed when a nominee hits the count.

Nothing is preventing Bernie from trying to change it by swaying the super delegates. Also, nothing is preventing voters from voting for Bernie. Who is disenfranchised?

But as of now Clinton has the winning majority of delegates based on delegates pledged to her and super delegates who said they'll vote for her, as is being correctly reported by the media.

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Buh buh but...math is not fair!

Counting votes = huge media conspiracy.  

I never thought of this before.

I think it's clear the media is in the tank for Sanders. Or perhaps Trump.

Announcing before today's primaries is very politically inopportune for Clinton. It plays right into Sanders' and Trumps' campaigns to de-legitimize our electoral systems and provides an opportunity to inject some righteous indignation into the anti-Clinton movements.

Why is the media so biased toward Sanders and Trump? Shame on them.

(alternatively, the AP and other news organizations don't feel beholden to any particular candidate, and see it as their journalistic duty to report the facts as they see them. But that's impossible because, as we know, the media is clearly biased and untrustworthy, and the proof is that the world they report on looks nothing like the one I wish I lived in).

To me this is a case of the media trying to "make" news.  It was a slow day yesterday and they decided to make this pronouncement.  It upsets Bernie voters, it steals Hillary's thunder for tonight (assuming she wins), it suppresses votes for both of them.  It is akin to announcing exit poll results before polls close.  This is not business as usual on the eve of a big primary day.  There was zero news reason to push to announce this last night except Trump must have been having a quiet day.

Why are "superdelegates" divulging to anyone who they support before the end of the contested primary process.  

eliz said:

To me this is a case of the media trying to "make" news.  It was a slow day yesterday and they decided to make this pronouncement.  It upsets Bernie voters, it steals Hillary's thunder for tonight (assuming she wins), it suppresses votes for both of them.  It is akin to announcing exit poll results before polls close.  This is not business as usual on the eve of a big primary day.  There was zero news reason to push to announce this last night except Trump must have been having a quiet day.

Not really.

The media has been giving us delegates counts for the whole primary season. No one complained about releasing the counts up to now.

Sooner or later the delegate count for a nominee would pass the majority win threshold.

Sunday, Clinton's count went up due to the Puerto Rico primary. Clinton also got about two dozen additional super delegate committed to her Sunday and Monday.

The result is Clinton's delegate count reached the win threshold. 

Its not the media making news, its the media reporting news - their job.

Robert_Casotto said:

Why are "superdelegates" divulging to anyone who they support before the end of the contested primary process.  

Is this your first primary?  

mjh said:

Robert_Casotto said:

Why are "superdelegates" divulging to anyone who they support before the end of the contested primary process.  

Is this your first primary?  

If they did that then the conspiracy theories would really fly. Secret super delegate counts controlled by secret cabals.

Its more transparent.

paulsurovell said:


And the declaration was fraudulent.

Promoted by the same people who promoted the lies about WMDs:

Ha, Paul, that isn,t fraudulent, and I can,t follow your WMD connection, but nice try.

BTW: probably see you later at the polls .....

eliz said:

To me this is a case of the media trying to "make" news.  It was a slow day yesterday and they decided to make this pronouncement.  It upsets Bernie voters, it steals Hillary's thunder for tonight (assuming she wins), it suppresses votes for both of them.  It is akin to announcing exit poll results before polls close.  This is not business as usual on the eve of a big primary day.  There was zero news reason to push to announce this last night except Trump must have been having a quiet day.

I agree. The Media is, in effect, telling the voters in the States voting today that our votes do not matter. 

The process is not "rigged" it's just dumb.

Fortunately when I went to vote this morning there was a very big turnout. 

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Different from a poll; it's an actual count of 571 superdelegates who said they supported Clinton.

tjohn said:

I don't understand.  Did the AP take away your right to vote.  If voters let this AP announcement change the way they will vote today, they hardly deserve the right to vote anyway.

In theory you are correct, but when the entire media declares the contest over many people may decide "why bother".

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Different from a poll; it's an actual count of 571 superdelegates who said they supported Clinton.

Okay, I was being a little sarcastic.

A survey like that is much more accurate than a poll.

The sooner the outlet gets the headline on the web, the best chance it has to be hotlinked on people's twitters and facebooks and blogs. This story only lives for less than 24 hours - and can only make ad money today. It's not a Trump story that lives for a week. Why report on the story at all if I have to report it tomorrow and not make any money, and possibly lose money reporting it?

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Different from a poll; it's an actual count of 571 superdelegates who said they supported Clinton.

Okay, I was being a little sarcastic.

A survey like that is much more accurate than a poll.

For Paul's benefit: the margin of error being that they can change their minds.

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Different from a poll; it's an actual count of 571 superdelegates who said they supported Clinton.

Okay, I was being a little sarcastic.

A survey like that is much more accurate than a poll.

Which I found amusing.

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Different from a poll; it's an actual count of 571 superdelegates who said they supported Clinton.

Okay, I was being a little sarcastic.

A survey like that is much more accurate than a poll.

For Paul's benefit: the margin of error being that they can change their minds.

At today's end Clinton's count will be well over the threshold, by at least 300. I can't see that many, if any, super delegates switching to Bernie. Bernie's only hope is her being indicted.

BG9 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Different from a poll; it's an actual count of 571 superdelegates who said they supported Clinton.

Okay, I was being a little sarcastic.

A survey like that is much more accurate than a poll.

For Paul's benefit: the margin of error being that they can change their minds.

At today's end Clinton's count will be well over the threshold, by at least 300. I can't see that many, if any, super delegates switching to Bernie. Bernie's only hope is her being indicted.

And unless your crystal ball is better than mine, an indictment could happen between today and the end of July, which is when superdels vote. 

BG9 said:

At today's end Clinton's count will be well over the threshold, by at least 300. I can't see that many, if any, super delegates switching to Bernie. Bernie's only hope is her being indicted.

1. Not going to happen

2. If it did it would only help her.

3. If it did and it prevented her from being the nominee, Bernie would not automatically benefit.

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Excellent.  Yes, Hillary's "victory" is really a poll taken on June 7th.  She has not "won" the nomination, she has not "clinched" the nomination.  But that's not how the NY Times and other corporate media are presenting it.

This is just the latest phase of the corporate media's attempt to pressure Bernie to quit and to convince voters that "it's over."

Regarding WMDs, the entire corporate media was complicit in the WMD lie, not just the NY Times.

Regarding the Presidential nomination, although most corporate media will fall in line, there will be more dissent and more independent coverage than in 2003.

That's in large part because alternate sources of information are far more prevalent, thanks to the Internet, than they were in 2003.

For example:

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

According to the articles (it's not just the NY Times, so this has nothing to do with WMDs), they took a poll of all delegates, both pledged and "super".

I have been informed in the last few weeks, that we should pay attention to polls.

Excellent.  Yes, Hillary's "victory" is really a poll taken on June 7th.  She has not "won" the nomination, she has not "clinched" the nomination.  But that's not how the NY Times and other corporate media are presenting it.

This is just the latest phase of the corporate media's attempt to pressure Bernie to quit and to convince voters that "it's over."

Regarding WMDs, the entire corporate media was complicit in the WMD lie, not just the NY Times.

Regarding the Presidential nomination, although most corporate media will fall in line, there will be more dissent and more independent coverage than in 2003.

That's in large part because alternate sources of information are far more prevalent, thanks to the Internet, than they were in 2003.

For example:

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

Yes. More truth about superdelegates from the alternative media.

Those anonymous superdelegates can no longer hide in their secret chamber.

BlueGrass said:

paulsurovell said:


And the declaration was fraudulent.

Promoted by the same people who promoted the lies about WMDs:

Ha, Paul, that isn,t fraudulent, and I can,t follow your WMD connection, but nice try.

BTW: probably see you later at the polls .....

The Times reported that Hillary has "clinched" the election.  She hasn't.

paulsurovell said:

BlueGrass said:

paulsurovell said:


And the declaration was fraudulent.

Promoted by the same people who promoted the lies about WMDs:

Ha, Paul, that isn,t fraudulent, and I can,t follow your WMD connection, but nice try.

BTW: probably see you later at the polls .....

The Times reported that Hillary has "clinched" the election.  She hasn't.

The only way they're wrong: If the superdelegates decide to ignore the will of the voters.

BG9 said:

eliz said:

To me this is a case of the media trying to "make" news.  It was a slow day yesterday and they decided to make this pronouncement.  It upsets Bernie voters, it steals Hillary's thunder for tonight (assuming she wins), it suppresses votes for both of them.  It is akin to announcing exit poll results before polls close.  This is not business as usual on the eve of a big primary day.  There was zero news reason to push to announce this last night except Trump must have been having a quiet day.

Not really.

The media has been giving us delegates counts for the whole primary season. No one complained about releasing the counts up to now.

Sooner or later the delegate count for a nominee would pass the majority win threshold.


Sunday, Clinton's count went up due to the Puerto Rico primary. Clinton also got about two dozen additional super delegate committed to her Sunday and Monday.

The result is Clinton's delegate count reached the win threshold. 

Its not the media making news, its the media reporting news - their job.

This would be true if they presented the story as today's "count" rather than as the conclusion of the process.

paulsurovell said:
That's in large part because alternate sources of information are far more prevalent, thanks to the Internet, than they were in 2003.

For example:

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

Great reporting.  The "super" delegates aren't anonymous.

[Edited to add]  I really liked (past tense) Bernie at one time.  But his partisans are shoveling non-factual statements at a "Fox News" level right now.