3 ms·

I remember being on Twitter on most of election day and seeing evidence of all sorts of manufactured rhetoric from Reuters, and was really disturbed (proof belo

by fareesh 10y ago

I remember being on Twitter on most of election day and seeing evidence of all sorts of manufactured rhetoric from Reuters, and was really disturbed (proof below). There are a lot of other explanations for why this happened, but I'm not inclined to believe them given the reality of what happened on election day. It looked like Reuters' polling towards the 8th showed Trump taking the lead, but they deleted the data and replaced it with Nov 1 data. Plenty of people caught it and called them out - several people took videos as well so the chance of them being a coordinated effort to doctor screenshots seems low. I don't know if they ever responded to this issue, but it forever changed my opinion of Reuters. If we're to assume the worst about this then it's pretty disgusting if this is the kind of shady stuff the media is pulling. I sympathize in principle, but in reality the question is whether this breed of media deserves anything but contempt. Tweets with screenshots / photos (more in the same thread): https://twitter.com/Blazingcatfur/status/796071971700244480 https://twitter.com/Blazingcatfur/status/796071971700244480 https://twitter.com/ProtectthePope/status/796068457137733637 https://twitter.com/ProtectthePope/status/796068457137733637 Also of note (posted elsewhere in the comments here, but downvoted): They posted this article on the 8th, saying there was a 90% chance of a Clinton win. Their data didn't support this claim. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1322J1 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1...

cirath 10y ago
The linked Reuters article said their polls showed a 90% chance of a Clinton win, but the polls across all boards proved to be unreliable after the fact. What they did that advanced the idea of unbiased journalism is twofold: First, they reported on early election numbers in North Carolina which directly contradicted their poll numbers and showed Trump performing better than predicted. Second, they outlined a clear and realistic path to Trump winning. While their own poll numbers did not support this fact, they ultimately included it. They also did not rule out a Trump win in any way. It is always important to note that a 90% chance of winning is in no way a guarantee, and I do not believe Reuters ever truly ruled out Trump as a contender. They used the only early data available, polls--and when every poll is wrong, and psychics are still not a real thing, they did what they could with the data they had. At least, in my reading of the article you linked. Regarding the polls you linked, those are not the Reuters/Ipsos polls of 15,000 participants. Those are much smaller polls (850 users) with far larger margins for error. While I cannot speak to the censoring of the 11/6 poll mentioned in the second tweet, having Trump leading in popular vote nationally (eg: what polls generally check) was ultimately incorrect, regardless of what you believe. Polls need to be carefully read, interpreted, and corrected for -- which is why fivethirtyeight gave Trump a much higher chance to win than any other body.
serge2k 10y ago
Oh my god what a scandal. I better never believe anything said by the media again. MAGA. etc...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
grayrest 10y ago
> I don't know if they ever responded to this issue, but it forever changed my opinion of Reuters. I didn't write the code so I don't have first hand knowledge but I work for the guy who did. It was a data glitch.
peeters 10y ago
Just out of curiosity, would deliberately hiding polling data showing Trump was taking the lead help Trump or help Clinton? I'd assume it'd help Trump, given that showing Clinton slipping would tend to encourage her supporters to get out and vote.

by fareesh 10y ago

cirath 10y ago

The linked Reuters article said their polls showed a 90% chance of a Clinton win, but the polls across all boards proved to be unreliable after the fact. What they did that advanced the idea of unbiased journalism is twofold: First, they reported on early election numbers in North Carolina which directly contradicted their poll numbers and showed Trump performing better than predicted. Second, they outlined a clear and realistic path to Trump winning. While their own poll numbers did not support this fact, they ultimately included it. They also did not rule out a Trump win in any way. It is always important to note that a 90% chance of winning is in no way a guarantee, and I do not believe Reuters ever truly ruled out Trump as a contender. They used the only early data available, polls--and when every poll is wrong, and psychics are still not a real thing, they did what they could with the data they had. At least, in my reading of the article you linked. Regarding the polls you linked, those are not the Reuters/Ipsos polls of 15,000 participants. Those are much smaller polls (850 users) with far larger margins for error. While I cannot speak to the censoring of the 11/6 poll mentioned in the second tweet, having Trump leading in popular vote nationally (eg: what polls generally check) was ultimately incorrect, regardless of what you believe. Polls need to be carefully read, interpreted, and corrected for -- which is why fivethirtyeight gave Trump a much higher chance to win than any other body.

serge2k 10y ago

Oh my god what a scandal. I better never believe anything said by the media again. MAGA. etc...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

grayrest 10y ago

> I don't know if they ever responded to this issue, but it forever changed my opinion of Reuters. I didn't write the code so I don't have first hand knowledge but I work for the guy who did. It was a data glitch.

peeters 10y ago

Just out of curiosity, would deliberately hiding polling data showing Trump was taking the lead help Trump or help Clinton? I'd assume it'd help Trump, given that showing Clinton slipping would tend to encourage her supporters to get out and vote.