The Media and Presidential Primary Results

Out of the 3 states so far, Barack Obama received more delegates in 2 of them and in the other one they tied.

STATE-BY-STATE DELEGATE COUNT
IA: Obama 16, The Clintons 15
NH: Obama 9, The Clintons 9
NV: Obama 13, The Clintons 12

Those are the facts. But according to the media, Hillary Clinton has won 2 of the states, when according to delegate count, she hasn't won any of them. Why is the President chosen according to electoral votes and the winners of state primaries anointed by popular vote? It's basically the same representative system which is supposed to reward candidates for having a broad appeal rather than appealing to only urban centers. But the media reports the primary winners on popular vote when it just isn't true. That wasn't the intent of the DNC or the State Democratic Parties. If they wanted the popular vote winner to get the most delegates, they would have set it up that way. But they didn't. They set up their delegate system based upon representation. But the media just refuses to report the real winner of Nevada, and they refuse to report that New Hampshire was a tie. You don't see anyone reporting that Barack Obama has beaten the Clintons twice and came away with a tie in the other battle. Why? If delegate count doesn't matter, then why should the electoral count matter? I want answers! I bet Al Gore does too.