The schizophrenic Gray Lady (NYT)

Would the New York Times (a/k/a the "Gray Lady" in media circles) please make up its mind about the meaning of last night's results? Here is a sample of just a few wildly contradictory statements from today's paper:

INTRODUCTION TO LEAD ARTICLE:
Mrs. Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was probably not sufficient to alter the basic dynamics of the race

FROM LEAD EDITORIAL:
Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.

But then:

HEADLINE OF SECOND ARTICLE:
With Clear Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight On

So what is a loyal (if increasingly jaded), lifelong reader to think? The Times is simultaneously stating that she had a "clear victory" and "did not get a big win." It posits on the one hand that her "margin... was probably not sufficient" to change the race, and then goes on to say that this 9-point victory is "giving her candidacy a critical boost."

In some cases, one might interpret these contradictions as a healthy sign of diverse viewpoints within the Times organization. But the larger impression left is that the Gray Lady is in the grip of schizophrenia -- on the one hand faced with the realities of the "math," and on the other reverting to its support for a homestate junior Senator.

The editorial this morning blasting Clinton's "negativity" is a major step forward, and may cause some unconscious culture shifts in a newsroom supposedly firewalled-off from the editorial page. But the overall impression is of a paper that is reeling from the cognitive dissonance of the facts on the ground not matching their previous convictions.