Why is the media spinning for Clinton?

I don't get it, but the media seems to be helping the Clinton campaign spin two big stories.

First, that Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio have "leveled the playing field" and marked a comeback, when the net gain in delegates was only between 5 and 15, depending how the caucases go, which Obama seems set to win.

Second, that it is legitimate for Clinton to argue for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated.

Regarding the first story, in terms of delegates, which are what counts, Clinton gained virtually nothing. And her margin of victory in the Texas primary was so slim (barely more than 1%), and likely to be offset by a caucus victory for Obama, that one could argue that Obama, not Clinton, was the winner in Texas.

As for the second, why is there so little outrage in the media about the very idea of seating those delegates? Why is it being reported on as if it were a perfectly legitimate and fair question?
The argument that you can't change the rules in the middle of the game is one thing. I think a more fundamental question is, how could it possibly be considered fair to either candidate to seat them based on how the votes were cast back in January? How many people stayed home in both states, because they knew that no delegates would be awarded? At least everyone was on the ballot in Florida, but seating Michigan would be ludicrous, because only Hillary's name was on the ballot.