3 ms·

> And for the journalists working in the next room to not want to win a Pulitzer for exposing it. Has there ever been a case of a journalist winning a pulitzer

> And for the journalists working in the next room to not want to win a Pulitzer for exposing it. Has there ever been a case of a journalist winning a pulitzer for uncovering corruption within their own newsroom? I thought there was a de facto ban on that. (E.g. I don't think the NYT won a pulitzer for reporting that they had previously censored all news about Bush's spying infrastructure to help him get re-elected.)

jacques_chester 10y ago
> I thought there was a de facto ban on that. Also ordered by Clinton from a mail-order catalogue, I assume.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  If the discrepancy is primarily due to the shy tory effect and not the polls being rigged, this should be easy to see from the data because robopolls should be vastly more accurate than live polls. Is this the pattern that actually exists? edit: "The study found only a slight impact by moving poll respondents from the internet to a phone call with a live interviewer — with larger effects among college-educated white voters."[1][2] So while I think it's likely there was a shy tory effect, the evidence suggests it was small enough that there must have been other factors at play. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/polling-election-what-went-wrong-231207 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/polling-election-what-... [2] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/poll-shy-voters-trump-230667 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/poll-shy-voters-trump-...
  - jacques_chester 10y ago
    > this should be easy to see from the data because robopolls should be vastly more accurate than live polls The same pattern is observed in other countries regardless of polling method or polling company. So unless Clinton has been rigging polls world-wide for decades in anticipation of her 2016 run, it seems more plausible that people don't trust pollsters.

jacques_chester 10y ago

> I thought there was a de facto ban on that. Also ordered by Clinton from a mail-order catalogue, I assume.

Alex3917 10y ago
If the discrepancy is primarily due to the shy tory effect and not the polls being rigged, this should be easy to see from the data because robopolls should be vastly more accurate than live polls. Is this the pattern that actually exists? edit: "The study found only a slight impact by moving poll respondents from the internet to a phone call with a live interviewer — with larger effects among college-educated white voters."[1][2] So while I think it's likely there was a shy tory effect, the evidence suggests it was small enough that there must have been other factors at play. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/polling-election-what-went-wrong-231207 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/polling-election-what-... [2] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/poll-shy-voters-trump-230667 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/poll-shy-voters-trump-...
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  > this should be easy to see from the data because robopolls should be vastly more accurate than live polls The same pattern is observed in other countries regardless of polling method or polling company. So unless Clinton has been rigging polls world-wide for decades in anticipation of her 2016 run, it seems more plausible that people don't trust pollsters.