In These Times illustrated its story with a photo of a Sanders rally. (photo: Marc Piscotty/Getty Images)
In These Times‘ Christopher Hass (2/25/16) cites FAIR on media manipulation of superdelegates:
What is disturbing, however, is that many mainstream outlets (including MSNBC and Politico) have begun combining superdelegate totals in with pledged delegates as part of their results on election night, and the New York Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg news and others have begun including superdelegate endorsements in their overall delegate counts. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting points out that this didn’t use to be the case, and doing so gives the false impression that superdelegates are somehow connected to the voting itself. They are not, and the media should stop pretending otherwise.
What on earth do you mean, when you say, that “that super-delegates are somehow connected to the voting itself(?).” Then, are you also saying that these super-delegates are not themselves, voters? If you object to super-delegates, aren’t you also seeming to give a pass to the idea of delegates, at all? The vote of a delegate, has more weight than the vote of the average voter. If that isn’t an unjustifiable reality, why complain that there are super-delegates whose votes carry a greater weight than does the average voter?
I am, and was, a strong Hillary supporter. I had to endure the painful reality, that Obama has lost in the popular vote, but won with the delegates and super-delegates. I wonder if FAIR was as concerned with this, on principle, when it was Hillary losing the election, as it is now, with Sanders, even with the popular vote, I suspect, going to Hillary?
If they can change there mind on who they will choose they media shouldn’t count them yet that’s just the media trying to manipulate the voters on who they want its all bullshit