We get the other anti-Clinton Reuters out here, I wish they’d use different names to avoid confusing people.
Come on don’t play naive. On the night before the last primaries, despite there not having been any votes in weeks, they suddenly create a “BREAKING NEWS STORY” that Hillary had enough delegates to win the nomination.
Of course, she already had the same number of delegates weeks earlier. Or on the contrary, none of the superdelegates had voted yet or were bound to vote for anyone yet.
But the point was they were colluding with the Clinton campaign, who had already wrapped up the nomination, to save her any possible embarrassment of losing California the next day. They were behaving just like the New York Times, The L.A. Times, NBC, CNN, and many other liberal outlets, which is a shame, because an organization like Reuters should just stick to the facts.
By Super Tuesday, Bernie had already lost the nomination, just like Clinton did in '08. They both just kept going. By the time California rolled around for their respective official primary losses, they were doing this “it’s mathematically possible” with the emphasis on mathematically and not so much on realistically. And the media played along because the media loves a horse race. If they had been truly neutral and not playing to the horse race narrative, Reuters would have called it weeks earlier, instead of, as you said, waiting for a slow news day and calling the primary then to help pick things up. Now I agree that on the issues, Reuters tends conservative, and so probably treated Clinton more favorably in policy reporting than Sanders. But the primary call? Not just late, but very late.