The Washington Post dons a fig leaf.
Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias
In what has to be some kind of record, The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours after his upset victory over Hillary Clinton in Michigans Democratic presidential primary.
Its obvious from this tiny sample of 1/547th of the calendar year, taken after an objectively huge Sanders win in Michigan, that The Post has a pro-Sanders bias. Are Post journalists even capable of criticizing the Vermont senator? Doubt it.
(If you somehow failed to detect the sarcasm in the above or don't get the joke this should help. Basically, Sanders supporters noted Tuesday that The Post had run 16 "negative" in their minds stories about Sanders in 16 hours after Sunday night's debate, in which his performance was seen as less-then-stellar.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/now-the-washington-post-ran-16-positive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/
March 8 2016
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
By Adam Johnson
http://www.fair.org/static/bernie-static.html
In what has to be some kind of record, the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours, between roughly 10:20 PM EST Sunday, March 6, to 3:54 PM EST Monday, March 7a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next mornings spin:
The most critical thing to remember is that
timing is everything, sixteen positive articles after Bernie's historical primary upset of Hillary in Michigan when it would be exceptionally challenging to cast a negative article with a straight face doesn't come close in equating to sixteen negative articles in sixteen hours; with no balance during the "midnight hour" just before the primary in that state took place allowing little to no time for rebuttal.