Reminds me of the Maoist party in Nepal. I was following the coverage in BBC news for a couple of years, they were constantly talking about how bad the Maoists were, how everyone hated and feared the Maoists. Then, there were the first free elections, and the Maoists won with a landslide victory.
Basically from that day onward, there was a near-silence from the BBC about the Maoists even existing. That ended about 5 years later when the Maoists started slipping in the polls, the BBC discovered an interest in reporting on Nepal again, with the headline "Why Nepal Rejected The Maoists" with barely a Nepal story printed in between their victory and that point in time.
But while it's true that Nepal rejected the "Communist Party (Maoist Centre)" in 2013, who got only 80 seats, the "Communist Party (Unified Marxist–Leninist)" picked up 175 seats, and there's also the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist) with 5 seats, Communist Party of Nepal (United) with 3 seats, Federal Socialist Forum Nepal (15 seats), Nepal Workers Peasants Party (4 seats), National Madhesh Socialist Party (3 seats), Socialist People's Party (1 seat), Rastriya Janamorcha (front face for Communist Party of Nepal (Masal)) with 3 seats, and an additional 20 seats or so held by a cluster of center-left parties.
So when they say one Communist party lost, that's completely misleading, since there are about a dozen communist/socialist/left parties there with seats in parliament. BBC presented it without context as if it's a two-party system, which it definitely is not.
BBC =/= impartial purveyor of world news.