The New York Times Shameless Support Of Clinton Has Become Very Entertaining

The New York Times shamelessly favors Hillary Clinton in any article written about her or Bernie Sanders.

Now before you say “Of Course! The New York Times has endorsed Clinton.” I just wanted to ask What happened to the unbiased news reporting?  … at least once in a while.

At first I thought it was just the article I was reading but then quickly started to notice a trend. The New York Times structures and writes articles as if it was owned by the Clinton campaign and hasn’t simply endorsed her. Some of the articles (below) are opinion pieces and others front page news however all have the same tone which is to make Sanders look weak, negative and as if he has already lost to Clinton.
You can see some of my favorite titles and few words from each of the writers which that stood out. If you are able to get past the unfairness of The New York Times you will be able to see a lot of humor in what they do.

“I think the balance of evidence points to Mrs. Clinton: Her strength in the heavily Hispanic areas of Las Vegas and among Hispanic voters in most national polls is, to my mind, much stronger evidence than an entrance/exit poll sample of 213 Hispanic respondents in 25 precincts.”

 

“But the finding that Mr. Sanders won the Hispanic vote is at best extremely questionable — and, at worst, wrong.”

 

“Instead of flocking to him, as supporters do at his large college rallies, many of the church’s 780 members present looked up for a moment,then quietly went back to eating their Sunday feast”… She continued “Mr. Sanders delivered remarks at a microphone next to a buffet table offering chicken, collard greens and dinner rolls.”

 

“The divide was on vivid display Monday afternoon at the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church here, as five mothers in the Black Lives Matter movement spoke powerfully about their support for Mrs. Clinton”

 

“But the often overlooked delegate count in the Democratic primary shows Mr. Sanders slipping significantly behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the nomination, and the odds of his overtaking her growing increasingly remote.

Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sanders’s 70; 2,383 are needed to win the nomination.”

“Bernie Sanders’s loss in the Nevada caucuses, 47 percent to 53 percent, reveals a very real weakness of his insurgent challenge to Hillary Clinton.

According to entrance polls — which may have had some problems of their own, problems that we’ll discuss shortly — Sanders’s appeal is not broad enough among key groups that traditionally make up the base of the Democratic Party.

He lost among women, blacks, nonwhites, and self-described Democrats. But the loss was even more troubling for his camp than that. He also lost highly educated caucusgoers with postgraduate degrees, both the poorest and wealthiest groups, and moderates.”