4 ms·

The Washington Post reporters knew that Google Trends data was not accurate and misleading. They went with it because: it is a liberal site, wanted to make peop

The Washington Post reporters knew that Google Trends data was not accurate and misleading. They went with it because: it is a liberal site, wanted to make people angry against the Brexit voters. Also Jeff Bezos(the owner) has a beef with Trump and publicly supports liberal media outlets like Gawker. tldr: Nothing unexpected happened, they knew what they were doing.

th0ma5 10y ago
Rather than downvote, I'd love to see some links regarding if the Post has a liberal bias, that they knew they were publishing inaccurate and misleading information and did so willingly with intent to deceive, and evidence that they want their readers to be angry against the Brexit votes. I totally agree with your other, factual statements, Bezos I'm sure doesn't care for Trump, and does indeed probably support Gawker. I just can't find anywhere in the world literature any evidence that supports your other claims. Or I guess I wouldn't would I?
- bduerst 10y ago
  Same here. It's seems to me they're trying to spread F.U.D., but I would love to read more if it's backed up. On the flip side of the coin, some typically conservative media tried to use Google Trends to prove manipulation of instant search results to be pro-Hillary [1], with the same results of not really undestanding how instant search really works [2][3]. [1] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/10/google-burying-anti-clinton-search-results/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/10/google-burying-anti... [2] http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google... [3] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-instant-behind-scenes.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-instant-behin...
pessimizer 10y ago
Neither the WaPo nor Bezos are "liberal" (unless you mean liberal in the economic sense), but the WaPo is very much anti-Brexit. I agree with you that this was a story constructed to fit their editorial line.
Tsagadai 10y ago
This is probably a good time to use Occam's Razor. Assuming that it was malicious bias is a big assumption when the more logical conclusion is that the journalist simply did not know how Google trends works (or how to read a graph without a numerical scale on it). If the journalist wrote the article after reading the original post we could draw a different conclusion but without knowing that it is safer to assume ignorance instead of malice.

th0ma5 10y ago

Rather than downvote, I'd love to see some links regarding if the Post has a liberal bias, that they knew they were publishing inaccurate and misleading information and did so willingly with intent to deceive, and evidence that they want their readers to be angry against the Brexit votes. I totally agree with your other, factual statements, Bezos I'm sure doesn't care for Trump, and does indeed probably support Gawker. I just can't find anywhere in the world literature any evidence that supports your other claims. Or I guess I wouldn't would I?

bduerst 10y ago
Same here. It's seems to me they're trying to spread F.U.D., but I would love to read more if it's backed up. On the flip side of the coin, some typically conservative media tried to use Google Trends to prove manipulation of instant search results to be pro-Hillary [1], with the same results of not really undestanding how instant search really works [2][3]. [1] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/10/google-burying-anti-clinton-search-results/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/10/google-burying-anti... [2] http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google-debunked http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11903028/hillary-clinton-google... [3] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-instant-behind-scenes.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-instant-behin...

pessimizer 10y ago

Neither the WaPo nor Bezos are "liberal" (unless you mean liberal in the economic sense), but the WaPo is very much anti-Brexit. I agree with you that this was a story constructed to fit their editorial line.

Tsagadai 10y ago

This is probably a good time to use Occam's Razor. Assuming that it was malicious bias is a big assumption when the more logical conclusion is that the journalist simply did not know how Google trends works (or how to read a graph without a numerical scale on it). If the journalist wrote the article after reading the original post we could draw a different conclusion but without knowing that it is safer to assume ignorance instead of malice.