If you look at the first tweet, the poll on the left is entirely correct[footnote]According the my check of realclearpolitics' poll histories at least[/footnote]. The poll on the right does have Warren and Bernie switched. However, it ALSO switched Biden and Buttigieg; are you telling me that CNN is shilling for Buttigieg over Biden as well? Funny how that escaped your outrage. Also, the second half of that first tweet is an article from CNN itself, their damn polling director wrote it. Just maybe, the intern doing the graphic that day was half-asleep? Or they misread the names? Or they're not paid enough to worry about occasional detail slips because they're overworked[footnote]Something that would actually be worth getting upset about if true[/footnote]?Seanchaidh said:
As for the second tweet, there's dozens of reasons that Sanders may not have been mentioned. Here's a few straight off the top of my head:
1. Sanders and Warren have always been "within striking distance" of one another in pretty much every single primary poll (regardless of who is in front of who), so there's no need to state it. Stating exactly what everyone expects doesn't bring in views.
2. They took the "newsworthy" angle of "even the 3rd and 4th place" candidates are close. It's not often that the primary polls show that. Again, "newsworthy" meaning "out of the ordinary" or "likely to get more people talking."
3. Biden and Buttigieg being that close to the top is "shocking." This is related to both points 1 and 2: Buttigieg was largely unknown prior to this primary season and Biden has been nose-diving in most polls (relative to his starting position months ago). News media is largely driven by "shock value" and has been for decades now. Them choosing the most "turn your head back to the TV" phrasing is no surprise.
Finally, what the fuck is "vision boarding"? If it's what it sounds like based on context, how the fuck is this proof of it? Sanders name is literally in all 3 graphics and present in the CNN article. "Vision boarding," again based on the implied criticism, would be if they hadn't shown him at all; he's clearly present though.
Take your nonsense self-victimization elsewhere. There's plenty of shit to criticize CNN for; making shit up to play victim just makes the valid criticism seem less accurate. "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome, if you will.
I know this is asking a lot, but did you take even a second to ask "I wonder why this might happen" before jumping aboard the anger train?
