In reporting on the Democratic campaign, Keith Olbermann was joined by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd. Here are the parts I found problematic:

OLBERMANN: All right. Well, to continue this discussion that we started last night, when it comes to the pledged delegate count, is this thing basically over? Did anything change, in fact, last night?

TODD: Nothing really changed at all. In fact, look, if we treated this the way we would call an election in a state, you know, the way are our numbers guru, Shelly Gweiser (ph) and Evans Whitman (ph), they‘re looking at this stuff, we would call it. It‘s over. The pledged delegate count is going to be Obama‘s, it‘s just is - because of proportionality, it is mathematically impossible for her to take the lead.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is it in fact mathematically impossible for Clinton to take the pledged delegate lead? In fact, it is not. Is it highly improbable? Of course. The proper phrase to use, as a journalist, is highly improbable. It is false to say it is mathematically impossible, particularly since Michigan and Florida may still have their delegations seated. The phrase "mathematically impossible" has a factual meaning. Todd's statement is simply false. And a journalist should NEVER state a deliberate falsehood.

How do I know it is false? Why Chuck Todd himself tells me:

In fact, when you start look at these percentages, right now, she would need 69 percent of all remaining delegates to take the lead.

While it is highly improbable that Clinton can win 69% of the remaining pledged delegates, it clearly is not mathematically impossible. Continuing, Todd says:

After May 6th, assuming a 50 /50 split of those delegates that are up for grabs, and that‘s being very generous to Senator Clinton in this case, then suddenly she would have to win 85 percent of the remaining delegates. That is impossible because of the fact Obama‘s name will be on the ballot on a lot of these places and as long as he gets 16 percent of the vote instead of 15 percent, he will win the pledged delegate count.

"Assuming a 50/50 split in delegates on May 6th." Of course, if you assume it won't happen, then you can say, you have assumed it won't happen. Please understand my argument, I am not saying it is unreasonable to say it is highly improbable and to report that, but Chuck Todd does not know what is going to happen with certainty. He simply does not. Here is an example. On the night of the Pennsylvania primary, when the margin was 8 and about 45% of the precincts were out, Todd stated WITH CERTAINTY, that the final margin would lower to 6 or 7 because the Philly suburbs were not yet in. Of course, as I wrote that night, Chuck was wrong. A journalist sticks to the facts. Continuing:

OLBERMANN: And the new metric, the latest of whatever it is, 16 different metrics that we‘ve seen from that Clinton campaign, the popular vote argument: you have to include Michigan and Florida. Florida alone doesn‘t cut it. Michigan, where Obama‘s name didn‘t appear on the ballot, where Clinton signed a pledge promising the election would not count and gave radio interviews to that exact construction of the sentence, you need both of them in order to put her ahead in the popular vote.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted statement from Olbermann is false. The pledge said no such thing. A journalist should NEVER report a deliberate falsehood. Continuing, Todd discusses the popular vote issue:

TODD: . . . And so, even if you do, go ahead and throw in Florida, she has to find 200,000 votes somewhere in the remaining contest. She then—that means she can‘t lose a contest. I mean, North Carolina and Oregon are two places that she is going to be a heavy underdog, that she could lose by double digits in both states.

So, she can‘t afford to even lose at all in order to find 200,000 votes because if she lost there and let‘s say lost a net - she could lose as much as 150,000 votes out of North Carolina. But let‘s say 100,000 votes out of North Carolina, well then, she‘s got to find 300,000 votes, it‘s just not there. Kentucky and West Virginia, she‘s going to win big, even if she wins big she‘s going to net maybe 100,000 votes.

And I know I‘m like talking with a lot of numbers here and it‘s getting a little number crazy, but that‘s a metric that they‘ve inserted into this game and yet it‘s not going to work either.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted statements are presented as fact and are either false or opinion while being presented as fact. Clinton can certainly lose some contests and win the popular vote. This is not a difficult calculation either. Narrow losses and big wins is all you need to think about. A journalist should NEVER deliberately report false information.

For the last part of my critique, I want to point to Olbermann and Todd's discussion of Puerto Rico:

OLBERMANN: MSNBC and NBC News political director, Chuck Todd, of whom I read online today. Chuck, don‘t let yourself be pressured into discounting the vital importance of the vote in Puerto Rico. So, I‘m just passing that along, somebody might (INAUDIBLE) seriously.

TODD: Hey, I‘m hearing 2 million people might vote in Puerto Rico.

OLBERMANN: Don‘t discount it.

TODD: There you go. Except, they don‘t have a vote for an actual president. That‘s correct, right?

OLBERMANN: Thank you, Chuck. Don‘t discount it.

Let's leave aside the patronizing tone about Puerto Rico, which was offensive, the misunderstanding of the notion of the popular vote is incredible. Now Todd and Olbermann know that Puerto Rico, like other territories and/or commonwealths, have the right to select delegates to help determine who the Democratic nominee for President will be. It so happens Puerto Rico has 55 delegates, more than Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Utah and other states won by Barack Obama. And indeed, the Democrats have only a slightly better chance of gaining electoral votes from those states than they do from Puerto Rico. Very slightly better chance.

And the point is this, the popular vote is not a metric based on having a vote in November, it is a metric based on having a vote in DECIDING WHO WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! The concept of the Will of the People does not just apply to the Presidential election. It applies to the Democratic nomination process. It so happens that THE RULZ call for the Democrats of Puerto Rico to have a say in who is the Democratic nominee. Having given them that say, it is in no way illegitimate to argue to the Super Delegates that the votes of the Democrats in Puerto Rico are part of the total reflection of the will of the people regarding who should be the Democratic nominee.

There were two things wrong (besides the offensiveness) with the statements of Olbermann and Todd regarding Puerto Rico. First, they did not properly describe the popular vote argument. To wit, they falsely reported the popular vote argument. Journalists should never falsely report facts. Secondly, they opined on the merits of the popular vote argument they falsely described. Even if they had properly reported the argument, it is improper for journalists to let their reporting be tainted with their opinion.

I remind that this post was written with the assumption (one of Todd's favorite words) that Olbermann and Todd are trying to do real journalism here.