5 ms·

> Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high like

> Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science. Overwhelmingly improbable? Oh man! What is that likelihood? Please dont masquerade your opinions as facts by using terms like "likelihood" and "improbable". I have one question for you. If media influence over elections is so "unlikely" and so insignificant why would the NYT have tripped over itself to retitle and reword their article to make it seem like pro-Bernie? Media influence is real. You will quickly notice after speaking to people outside your bubble that the average voters political almost always conform to that of the "pundits".

libertymcateer 11y ago
The subscription and readership numbers just don't back this. People simply don't read newspapers. The NYT could say that Hillary is the second coming and the average voter wouldn't be aware of it.
- id 11y ago
  They have to get their information from somewhere. TV channels are media, too. Most people don't know Bernie, Hillary and Donald personally, so the only way to get an impression is the media.
  - settsu 11y ago
    No, not the only way. Just the lazy way.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gipp 11y ago
  Network effects are a hell of a thing.
- veidr 11y ago
  You don't have to read the newspaper for it to influence your your life, or even your own opinions. The institution has enormous power. Your example, the NYT, is quoted on TV and radio every single day, in and out of the US. Add to that the number of private who quote, forward, regurgitate-as-if-they-thought-of-it the articles. The power of the mainstream media is waning, but it is still more significant than anything else, other parts of the Internet included, in swaying voters.
Nimitz14 11y ago
> You will quickly notice after speaking to people outside your bubble The irony.
d23 11y ago
> Please dont masquerade your opinions as facts by using terms like "likelihood" and "improbable". By using... words?
omonra 11y ago
Heluva theory. Now - which media exactly is pro-Trump?

libertymcateer 11y ago

The subscription and readership numbers just don't back this. People simply don't read newspapers. The NYT could say that Hillary is the second coming and the average voter wouldn't be aware of it.

id 11y ago
They have to get their information from somewhere. TV channels are media, too. Most people don't know Bernie, Hillary and Donald personally, so the only way to get an impression is the media.
- settsu 11y ago
  No, not the only way. Just the lazy way.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gipp 11y ago
Network effects are a hell of a thing.
veidr 11y ago
You don't have to read the newspaper for it to influence your your life, or even your own opinions. The institution has enormous power. Your example, the NYT, is quoted on TV and radio every single day, in and out of the US. Add to that the number of private who quote, forward, regurgitate-as-if-they-thought-of-it the articles. The power of the mainstream media is waning, but it is still more significant than anything else, other parts of the Internet included, in swaying voters.

Nimitz14 11y ago

> You will quickly notice after speaking to people outside your bubble The irony.

d23 11y ago

> Please dont masquerade your opinions as facts by using terms like "likelihood" and "improbable". By using... words?

omonra 11y ago

Heluva theory. Now - which media exactly is pro-Trump?