3 ms·
>Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election? This is a misunderstanding of what was statistically probable. It's
by justinlaster 10y ago
>Like all the mainstream press that called it for Hillary for months before the election?
This is a misunderstanding of what was statistically probable. It's extremely unfair to say that the "mainstream press" called it for Hillary, when it was always going to come down to key battleground states. The exit polls weren't even wrong, it was just an astoundingly low voter turnout: and there could be many reasons for this, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
What you see now though, is most news sources trying to explain how the election turned out the way it did. You see them investigating actual facts and figures, and sometimes even taking a retrospective look at their own articles! Show me one Breitbart article that takes a retrospective about "what went wrong" or one time Breitbart issued a bonafide correction to an article they published.
>If you're not judging content by the content itself, than you've got blinders on.
And where did anyone advocate not doing that?
- cloakandswagger 10y agoSo the ABC poll having her up by 12 points a week prior, then dropping to 3 points, that doesn't meet your seemingly stringent criteria for fake news?
- justinlaster 10y agoPoll's swing and sway. There's always a margin of error; that's all fairly elementary statistics. What is fake about reporting their own poll?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago[removed]
- justinlaster 10y agoI am honestly not even sure what your point is anymore. Their data doesn't make their reports "truth." Them accurately reporting on a poll is what makes them truthful. "Poll's show Hillary's chance of winning at 80%" might be astoundingly wrong at the end of the day, that doesn't make their report about the poll a lie. Whether that poll reflects reality is a matter of statistical methodology, not journalistic integrity.
- sndean 10y agoI'm not sure if pollsters putting their finger on the scale == fake news, but there's a pretty well-documented record of polls "magically [0]" converging at the end of campaigns. Assuming pollsters are systemically altering their own polls at the very end of campaigns, I could argue that the news articles written about those altered polls are sorta fake news articles. [0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clinton-gains-and-the-polls-magically-converge/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clinton-...