I guess this is no surprise.
Big News (ha, I like that) is as entrenched as any old money business, so of -course- they want hillary to win, but I swear I can see the unease over trump.
There might be some value in knowing who owns the Washington Post.
The US media is taking several leaves out of how the Murdoch, Rothermere and Barclay press are dealing with the threat of Jeremy Corbyn.
I wouldnât leave the Graun off that list. Theyâve been resolutely anti Corbyn and Sanders all along.
I donât know anything about the Post or its biases. But I looked at some of the stories, and some of them donât seem ânegative about Sandersâ. E.g.,
âEven Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trumpâ - Hmm, isnât that negative about Trump? Looking inside,
For example, a CNN poll last week found that voters preferred Rubio and Ted Cruz to Clinton, but that
Clinton would beat Trump, and Bernie Sanders would beat any of those three Republican candidates.
That sounds positive to me.
âWhy Obama Says Bank Reform Is a Success but Bernie Sanders Says Itâs a Failureâ - This isnât negative about Sanders, itâs about how Sanders and others are critical of the administrationâs policies.
Granted, a number of the listed articles are negative, but it wasnât hard to find a good deal of anti-Clinton OpEd on the Postâs site, too. The premise of the headline here seems at least partially misleading to me.
Can we get some context here?
Just looking at the WPâs political section now, there is half a dozen stories about the surprise win in Michigan. How many stories about Hillary? how many positive? how many about Trump? how many about the elections in general?
16 stories in 16 hours is a useless metric except for stirring outrage on facebook.
My God! On BoingBoing? A misleading headline?
Iâve stopped buying it since that advertorial for investments in the Occupied Territories.
Bernie obviously needs to say something positive about SaaS, disruptive technology, and DRM.
Thatâs not positive, itâs an excellent example of âdamned by faint praise.â
If someone said âeven you arenât as dirty as that pigâ, would you read that as a positive statement towards you?
Not at all. While Trump is a joke of a human being, he is leading the republican nomination, and baring any big surprises will be the republicanâs presidential hopeful, and he will keep the support of the majority of republicans. Meaning that just about half the country is guaranteed to vote for him.
The headline explains that based on polling data and/or magic, both Bernie and Hillary would win against him. That is newsworthy as so far I think Hillary was seen as the only guaranteed choice to take Trump down.
Are you sure? Iâve seen it reported several times that Sanders is polling better than Mrs. Clinton in a match against Trump.
Here you go:
(Also @Nonentity)
I hear you, but to me youâre missing the pointâone of the chief tools of Clinton supporters has been âif Dems nominate Sanders, [Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Nyarlathotep] will be presidentâ, and the linked article undercuts that premise, by saying that even though Sanders trails Clinton significantly in the primary, he still handily trounces Trump in the hypothetical general election, and even does better than Clinton against Rubio and Cruz, and presumably against the Elder Gods. So, yes, the use of the word âevenâ in the headline can be read as diminishing for Sanders, what itâs really saying is that Trump would be in big trouble in the general against either Clinton or Sanders, and thus Sanders is not a âdangerousâ choice for Democrats in the primary.
(Looks like @benzbanana scooped me on my main point there.)
But he is a dangerous choice for the Democrat establishment, which is the problem.
more specifically, from cory.
And a few days ago, 8 of the top 10 stories on Salon.com were anti-Clinton stories. Where was your outrage then?
Salon =/= Washington Post
