Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
I want to congratulate the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams for doing such a thorough job reporting the true, 9.4 percent (not "double digits") nature of Hillary Clinton's win in Pennsylvania on last night's news. You can see the two graphics they used below.
(For the record, CBS News did a terrible job, just saying "Hillary Clinton's ten point win in the Pennsylvania primary has given her campaign new life and new money...", and ABC News did almost as poor a job, saying "Hillary Clinton argues her nearly 10 point victory over Barack Obama shows she's more electable..." while showing a graphic with 55 percent and 45 percent in big numbers, and the vote totals below them... the same vote totals that -- if you did the math -- worked out to the true, 9.4 percent win.)
I am highlighting this "truth in reporting" issue again, because this afternoon I actually saw the folks on MSNBC debating - not just reporting - Hillary Clinton's attempt to redefine "winning the nomination contest" as "the person with the most votes to their name - no matter how those votes were cast" (meaning, even the votes she got in Michigan).
This story is pure, 100 percent, George Bush-level redefining reality to suit your purposes behavior on the part of Hillary and her campaign.
And what does the mainstream media do about it? Well, so far, it treats it like a real story... like a "reality" that just might be true.
Watching people debate whether Hillary's version of reality could be true or not... rather than seeing an anchor person simply report "Hillary and her campaign are trying to claim they are winning when, in actuality, they are not."... just provides me with more evidence of the mainstream media's "stupidity factor"... something I wrote about in my commentary on last week's ABC News debate.
If the media is going to turn Hillary Clinton saying she is winning -- based on some completely fabricated logic system that holds no relationship to the truth -- into a debatable issue, then the media might as well pack up their sound trucks and go home. They will have proven themselves incapable of doing their job... which is to help the citizens of America be informed, not dumbed down.
In the inimitable words of Donald Trump, we, the people of the United States, may just have to say to the mainstream media.... "You're fired."
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The MSM has become nothing more than a tabloid platform. It covers the 2008 political campaign like a Brtiney Spears story.
I was shocked the media acted shocked by HRC's win. She was up by 20% and won by 9.4%. Wow, and they were shocked she won. With Rendell and Nutter pulling out all the stops the media was shocked? Inevitability doesn't sell papers. Thus, we get this spin that there is a contest. It is pathetic. MSM debate starts with "Do you think Wright loves America," "why don't you wear a lapel with a flag," "are you lying about Tuzla," "do you think we are bitter".....this is dribble. Why not just bring Maury Povich back and have him do all the news?
You know what I find facinating??
Hillary "new math" on the popular vote.......if this is how she adds.....i wonder what she thinks our nations debt totals are? ( no doubt she would use subtraction on this point)......................................... Talk about Delusions of Granduar.....
FL. and Mich DO NOT count.... they broke the rules. period....
no matter how you feel about this...one thing is for sure...we cannot break rules and then spin that it is ok..we should count all the votes.. I feel the delegates should be seated 50/50...thats it. I am beginning to feel Hillarys new motto should be.....
I HAVE A SOLUTION..... RULES ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN
You must be using funny math. Everyone who sees the difference between 45 and 55 would realize the difference is 10.
Just when I thought repulsion for the media was complete. While reading Wall Street Journal's account of how things might just "shake down", I lost count (and nearly motor function) at approximately the seventh variably obscure calculation, including wind speed and solar activity that will indeed.. ¦.possibly establish a most likely nominee.
Yes, the election process falls just short of that decisive, well-oiled mathematical machine it should inherently be. But the notion that a candidate could lobby the party like that of a 4th grader who argues a goal in kick ball in the school yard, raises the bar of disgust, especially when presented as a legitimate explanation to what might transpire.
The posturing by the Journal and Clinton's campaign that this nonsense is reasonable behavior for genuine, honest adults and professionals in full view of the public is one of the most offensive things I think I've read amongst the pile in some time.
Is this where they establish their "Florida-voting-machine-like" foreshadow?
MSNBC offers commentary, pundit debates, satire, and an occasional snippet of news. It is an unregulated, often obnoxious, cable outlet that some people mistake for a news source. It is entertainment and is not expected to adhere to any journalistic standards. They are worse than CNN, minutely better (maybe) than Fox.
Quality print news, which used to be the respected source, is fast disappearing because the independents are dying and because people prefer junk TV and internet sludge. It is not really the fault of the junk-purveyors. The market is there and we are a capitalistic society. There is a huge opening in the news market that no one is filling except maybe PBS. And they bore people. Maybe this campaign will push someone into the void and we'll wind up with some accurate, yet jazzy, new programming.
And Stephen, you are not exempt from the mob. There is plenty of the same nonsense that is pro-Obama. You did not mention that, but you are engaged in commentary, not news, so it doesn't really matter.
I'd love to see the news media start acting like news reporters again. But expecting an entertainer who talks about news to report that there is no news to entertain us with, is probably about like expecting a baby not to crap in their drawers.
There's NO debate, Barack still has more delegates, and there's NO way for Hellary-ous to top him.
All this "white working class" not voting for him cr!p is code for "I'm not voting for the black guy."
Amen!!! Actually debating whether a spin delusion that Hillary is trying on this week actually has merit? If they want to report it, fine. They can still call themselves a news organization. But if they start buying into her fantasies and reporting them as "news", they they have lost all credibility as reporters. Picture this: A reporter is covering an Olympic foot race. The starter gun goes off and the racers are off. After several laps, all but two of the runners are out of the race. One runner has finished 5/6ths of the race and the other is so far behind that she can never catch up if the rules are followed. SO, she calls the judges over and by a combination of threats, intimidation and bribery, she gets the judges to say that only runners who are wearing pink shoes with green laces can win. The front runner keeps running and crosses the finish line first, but the gold medal is awarded to the girl who just happens to be wearing pink shoes with green laces. Now, the reporter not only tells the world about this, but also reports that this is a fair race. Now, look up at the stands where the Olympic crowds are on their feet. What do you think happens when this "win" is reported to them? Hmmm??
If Obama is winning then we can stop acting link a banana republic and count all the votes - including the 10% of all democrats who live in Florida and Michigan.
I dont care if a new primary has to be held but not counting all the votes is affront to democratic principles and will tarnish any victory.
Rules seem to be ignored by your comment. Many people could have voted who didn't in the 2 primaries where they were told their votes would not be counted. If votes were to be counted the states with caucuses would have had primaries instead. It is taking the high ground and whinning like a child to insist votes should count after the fact. The party members insist on making delegates count - so various methods are used to choose the delegates. Because you cannot win by the rules is no reason to beg for a different measure to get your candidate elected. The only reason to beg for a rules change is because you are a sore loser that cannot accept your loss to a better qualified candidate. Now your may rant and rave as you see fit. I voted for Obama.
I play by the rules at work. I play by the rules at church. I play by the rules in the games I play. I may not always win - but life is like that. You win some - you lose some. Hillary can try again in 4 or 8 years. :-) Obama 08 - can't wait. :-) Remember to vote for your candidate of choice. It is the American way. :-)
Mr. Brant, CNN and MSNBC can learn a great deal from you. I was taught in elementary that you round up to the next whole number at .5 or higher, and round down lower than .5, when rounding by tenths. It would be a tragedy if the media showed Clinton winning by 9 points, or just showing the true figue of 9.4.
the margin continues to shrink...with 1 precinct left to report from Philadelphia:
=======================================================
CNN @ 1830 central 4/24 100% philadelphia
Clinton 1,260,444 [54.6436%] [[ 2,306,664 ]]
Obama 1,046,220 [45.3564%] margin [9.2872%]
=======================================================
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Secretary of State results:
9,263 of 9,264 precincts reporting [99.99%] with (1) philadelphia district still out [99.94%]
1830 central 4/24:
Clinton 1,245,911 [54.5528%] [[ 2,283,864 ]]
Obama 1,037,953 [45.4472%] margin [9.1056%]
=======================================================
Thank you for the update!
Yea!... Keep saying it ...all of us... the news media is responsible and obligated to tell the TRUTH and not spin for their own personal agendas! The twisted and deliberate spins are so blatant to many Americans that my only conclusion is that they think we are ignorant, gullible idiots...
It's impressive how much this political contest is improving my education. Back in school I was always taught that you only round up .5 or greater, but thanks to the MSM I now know that you can round up anything you want, as long as it helps make a loser look successful or increase ratings. Thanks MSM!
It's amazing that the msm can say, with a straight face, that Obama is not able to win, while he's winning!! Just like the media to not make any sense at all.
If Obama, winning more delegates and more votes is not electable, then what would the status of the losing Hillary be?
It boggles the mind when you really listen.
Oh my good gosh, thank you.
The media proved themselves incapable months ago. The public gave ABC a giant smack down for it after the "debate" - and they STILL do it.
They are utterly without integrity.
Protest, writh letters, agitate! There is an abc affiliate in your town, run on down and let them know personally that such behavior is not acceptable. They want to turn our elections into American Idol so they can rig who wins our presidency. Idiots like Sean Hannity and the like don't even have degrees in journalism and would be our eighth smartest friend, yet we lift them to the level that they actually lead our discussions. Insane.
Public media has always, more or less, pushed a point of view. For example, newspapers and printed fliers at the time of the first U.S. convention were even more virulent and slanted than those of today. Good for you to bring this out in the open for discussion.
I was just at the Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco (no "bitter" comments were heard) and this type of thing was discussed. We are witnessing an evolutionary time. Push media is the past and present: companies/people telling you what to believe and some trying their best to manipulate you to their point of view, with you having to possible response except to turn it off.
This blog is the present and future: an open, interactive world where points of view are expressed and discussed. It is an exciting evolution, like from the Encyclopedia Britannica to the Wiki.
I'm boycotting ABC period. I refuse to be "dumbed down"!
Thank you for injecting the note of sanity. The MSM has become so incestuously in love with their own schtick they have lost all sight of their obligation to truthfully inform.
As critical as I am a mainstream media, they are reporting on a Democratic nominating process. Unless Howard Dean is making a concerted effort to set the record straight, the MSM is under no obligation to do so. Nancy Pelosi tried to emphasize the importance of pledged delegates, but she backed off her statement after being threatened by the Clinton camp. This really has more to do with the lack of leadership among the Democrats.
I have to agree - ONE of them should step and point out that the contest is about pledged delegates and smack Hillary's wrist.
But then, people would complain that it is "sexist" to "take sides".
OSUMercutio -
The MSM is under no obligation to set the record straight? Are you nuts? You may have forgotten the once sacred principal of journalistic integrity, but I haven't. Yours is exactly the kind of apathy, masquerading here as cool-headed analysis, that empowers the media you profess to be so critical of. Yes, Dean and Pelosi should be doing more, but the mainstream media should also be reporting the story truthfully. The two are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.
Journalism has always been a rollicking mass of fact, opinion, debate and nonsense. Take a look at some of the stuff from 18th century New England.
Very good point.
Throughout this process no one is asking how a black freshman senator from Illinois can be ahead of the Clinton political machine. The Clintons have been building their political house for 40 years. That Hillary has not been able to best Obama is the real story.
This is Obama's first run for the office of the President and this is the 4th Presidential campaign that the Clintons have run. They are behind in every measure and Hillary"s campaign is sucking wind; it has been one of the worst managed campaigns of all times.
The question should be raised: WHY has Hillary done so poorly? Especially if one is to take into consideration what Chuck Todd likes to say. "With nearly the entire PA political establishment supporting her Hillary gets a 3% advantage right off the bat in PA."
One has to get a good chuckle out of the fact that the Clinton brand is being bested by a as Hillary likes to say "not experienced enough," black freshman senator from Illinois.
Although Hillary may have won 55% of the vote and 82 delegates in PA; Obama walked away with 73 delegates. Hillary only netted 9 delegates which is far less than the 10% popular vote win which would be 15.8 delegates. Hillary was bested by Obama in the delegates count in PA. The 9 delegate lead is just over 6% not 10% which would have yielded Hillary 16 more delegates instead of 9 delegates over Obama.
I was just watching MSNBC's Chris Matthews (or Mathews), who praised Hillary Clinton, he said he "takes his hat off to her" as a great politician. He might have even said the greatest politician, I don't know for sure because I was astounded.
He was praising her because she went to Pennsylvania and was able to convince the people of Pennsylvania that she was just a poor local girl, from a poor Pennsylvania family, etc. Matthews thought this behavior, this deceit of Hillary Clinton's, was fantastic. Well, I agree that Hillary Clinton deceived the people of Pennsylvania, she played a role so phony a child would see it, and yet the people of Pennsylvania didn't see it. Why? Those people are afraid, so afraid of change that they would vote for the most obvious phony I've ever seen run for office.
The greatest thing about Chris Matthews's statement about Hillary Clinton is he verified the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND CLINTON. THE REASON OBAMA IS THE WINNER OF THIS ELECTION IS THAT HIS SUPPORTERS DON'T WANT THE "GREATEST POLITICAN, WE WANT THE GREATEST PERSON, THE BEST INDIVIDUAL IN THE NATION TO BRING THE COUNTRY TO GREATNESS.
Here's what I don't get -- 5 or 6 weeks ago, she had a >20% lead in PA. Despite the fact that she got the endorsements of some major political players (eg, Gov Rendell) and that Obama had some controversial issues crop up (Rev Wright, bitter comment), she managed to lose more than half of that lead and only won by 9.4%. If she had widened her lead and had won by 20+, then that would be something to be praised. I don't get it.
I think the problem is that some of Obama's base eroded in Pennsylvania and that is the cause for concern. His demographics changed. Most likely because of those controversial issues you mentioned. Clinton was able to convert them so her demographics improved. It is not realistic to suppose that the Rev. Wright situation and the other slip-ups had no effect at all. They caused some voters to back off. The polls under-report that, which the media should have expected but apparently did not.
Even worse - he suggested seriously that Obam should watch Clinton so he could learn how to be more effective!
So we have a candidate that has all but cinched the nomination while driving his supposedly skilled opponent into campaign bankruptcy and he should try to be like her because she won a state with an electorate dominated by sock puppets?
I lost all respect for Chris Mattews when he humbly apologized to the Clinto campaign for acxtually saying something insightful and true - that Hillary would be an unknown but for who she married.
Hardball? Make it Puffball.
The only point I'd like to make about that is that I don't think Hillary's position is because of who she married. She was not exactly chopped liver. Her college commencement speech, which was ad-libbed, was featured in Life Magazine. Those who knew her at Wellsley, Yale and during her early career say her marriage disappointed them because they think she would have been in Congress by the time she was 30 and president in her 40's. They were dismayed when she married him and put his career above hers. Who knows? Certainly not Matthews.
Make it "Panderball."
I always knew [some] journalism majors struggled with quantitative reasoning, but I never realized it was so endemic. What don't they get about a mathematical impossibility? Reporters ought to be talking about the conditions that would satisfy Hillary's "electability" argument. Does anyone know what these are? If it ever comes time for superdelegates to come out and say, "okay folks, we're going to scrap the democratic voting process and 'go with our gut'", voters will all be waiting for a reasonable explanation ... many with their jaws firmly planted on the floor.
There is nothing that complicated about it. Until the superdelgates actually vote, no one wins. The elephant in the room is that the Clinton campaign expects Obama to self-destruct. The liklihood of that is probably actually better than it would normally be simply because he is an unknown. It is not unreasonable for Clinton to play out these last few primaries. Nearly half of the people to date have voted for her and they don't want to be dumped just because Obama's supporters want them to be.
If the media "packs up their sound trucks and goes home," as you have suggested, it will still be exactly what it now is - an echo chamber. (present company excepted)
This is the same thing as when they talk about climate change. They'll have a scientist on who represent the 99.999% of the Scientific Community against some shill for the oil compnay who represents Poofetrs Froth Community College, and characterize it as a debate between two opposing views of the issue.
Posted April 24, 2008 | 04:48 PM (EST)