To: Andrew Lack, NBC News Chief
MSNBC: Stop declaring winners who haven't won!
Presidential primary elections are not winner-takes-all! What matters is how many pledged delegates candidates get in each state.
Reporting on state-by-state "winners" is bad journalism. It's inaccurate and creates a mistaken impression about the results. Please change how you report out primary results.
Reporting on state-by-state "winners" is bad journalism. It's inaccurate and creates a mistaken impression about the results. Please change how you report out primary results.
Why is this important?
On Super Tuesday I watched as MSNBC breathlessly "projected" the results of each state's primary by declaring one or the other candidate the winner. That's inaccurate.
The general election in November works that way. The electoral college system means that winning a state by one vote gets you all of that state's delegates. But that's simply not how the primaries in either major party work.
If Hillary Clinton "wins" my state of Massachusetts by one percentage point, then she and Bernie Sanders will more or less split the pledged delegates from the state and both be a nearly equal amount closer to becoming the nominee. By announcing Clinton as the "winner" you create the mistaken impression that that one percentage point more made her much more likely to become the nominee. That's bad journalism.
In fact, for all of Donald Trump's success on Super Tuesday, the current estimate is that he will have won 254 pledged delegates on the night compared to 217 for Senator Ted Cruz. That's hardly an unambiguous victory.
You do you viewers a great disservice by inaccurately reporting the news. Your reporting can change the perception of the candidates chances and the election.
Please change how you talk about the results. You should report on the number of pledged delegates each candidate won and not focus on who "won" each state.
The general election in November works that way. The electoral college system means that winning a state by one vote gets you all of that state's delegates. But that's simply not how the primaries in either major party work.
If Hillary Clinton "wins" my state of Massachusetts by one percentage point, then she and Bernie Sanders will more or less split the pledged delegates from the state and both be a nearly equal amount closer to becoming the nominee. By announcing Clinton as the "winner" you create the mistaken impression that that one percentage point more made her much more likely to become the nominee. That's bad journalism.
In fact, for all of Donald Trump's success on Super Tuesday, the current estimate is that he will have won 254 pledged delegates on the night compared to 217 for Senator Ted Cruz. That's hardly an unambiguous victory.
You do you viewers a great disservice by inaccurately reporting the news. Your reporting can change the perception of the candidates chances and the election.
Please change how you talk about the results. You should report on the number of pledged delegates each candidate won and not focus on who "won" each state.