The Washington Post was the paper that investigated and then wrote an article explaining that Bernie Sander's average campaign contribution is not actually the famous "Twenty-seven dollars", but in fact $27.88.

That sounds about as serious as this article from Vice. It's just click-bait.

The worst thing they found (as far as I can see) is that the government required Apple to have a recycling program. What a horrible thing the first article was hiding from us.

The point is, that every manufacturer in the USA has a recycling program, as required by law. Why does Apple's press release get published as news?

Because one way of making new things is to take two existing things and combining them into some new arrangement. It's pretty much humanity in a nutshell. So they took "the us govt requires companies of a certain size to set up recycling programs", combine it with "Apple sells a lot of stuff", and bingo, you've got "apple recycles a ton of stuff" as a new story. It's kinda lazy, but it's low hanging fruit.

So, can we expect "Dell recycles a lot of stuff" next week, and HP the week after, followed by Sony?

Dell have an equivalent page: http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/id/corp-comm/us-goodwill-rec...

That's a fair point, but it's not a lie like the article asserts.

Are you being facetious or was this a real story? I'm not in America and have not heard of it.

It's real, and it's not in the Opinion section. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/18/be... (Paywall)

I didn't believed you until I read the article.

"$137 million divided by 4.7 million is ... $29.14.

More than 4.7 million contributions means, at most, 4,749,999 -- or else the campaign would round up to 4.8 million. Even with that higher number of donations, the average is $28.95. Which is more than $27."

This is laughable...but I haven't yet decided if it's in a good or a bad way. I mean, really? they are complaining about a 1-2 dollar difference from what BS says?

It wasn't behind a paywall for me at least. The article has a sensationalist headline but the content is what you would expect for a discussion about averages and pseudo-random quasi-uniform distributions : the average moves slightly. Big deal!

The Wall Street Journal is getting less so. Being a Murdock owned publication it was/is bound to happen. After the purchase, the political coverage has taken a decided more conservative leaning. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also infected the financial reporting.

People make the mistake of equating editorials with political news. They are not the same thing. The opinion section, the pages that have OPINION in big bold text at the top, are forthrightly conservative/libertarian, even though they have at least one regular liberal opinion columnist (William Galston) and constantly have guest articles written by politicians and business leaders of all stripes. The news sections are totally different and are pretty unbiased.

The news sections are always biased, if only by what they cover. For example, the New York Times, until the past month or so, was constantly running news stories about Hillary Clinton's chances in the general election against various Republicans. However, they obviously betray a bias since they considered all of the Republicans running, and only one of the Democrats. (Curiously, they started running more serious articles about Sanders only after it became clear he wasn't going to win the nomination.)

This is precisely what conservatives say about Fox News. Is the editorial firewall more effective at WSJ than at other News Corp properties? If not, you're being duped.

> Is the editorial firewall more effective at WSJ than at other News Corp properties?

Yes, it is. I know a number of liberal journalists who work at the WSJ and would never work at Fox and definitely wouldn't give a conservative tilt to their stories.

Yes.

I know someone on staff at the Wsj, and know their political views. I have seen their reporting and it is generally balanced. Yes, the papers always have an editorial line they are following, but it's not necessarily biased to push a view, but more so to match their buyers. Running a newspaper is not a public service for the Wsj.

The big surprise for most people is that people at institutions like Wsj and ny times try and be as professional as possible. They aren't acting like click bait interns at gawker.

Curious - I would have flipped the Post and the Times in your sentence.

>the washington post

their agenda and the political leanings of their new master is clear

http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...