4 ms·

I see what you're saying now. But I don't think you got my point either. The detail doesn't matter. Whatever that number was about, it was pretty clear that 90

I see what you're saying now. But I don't think you got my point either. The detail doesn't matter. Whatever that number was about, it was pretty clear that 90% was not the right number, I'm not even pro-trump and I was confused, imagine what others thought. Also, it is not ok to be irresponsible just because you're using a "scientific method". This is what cigarette companies did to fund research that "prove" that smoking is healthy. And this happens increasingly more, because writing polarizing articles generate more shares and page views and money. Lastly, I am not trying to talk politics here, and it's not even just about NYT. Nowadays for a lot of writers it's all about generating more page views. Again, I'm fine with it (even the "fake news" viral sites), but I was pointing out that it is hypocritical to claim that you're "the truth", when you do things that are biased.

hsod 9y ago
> Whatever that number was about, it was pretty clear that 90% was not the right number Was it? Maybe 90% didn't match up with your intuition, but NYT wasn't making that number up out of whole cloth. That's what the polls were saying, as analyzed by the NYT polling staff. Maybe they were wrong (maybe they weren't-- things that have a 10% chance of happening happen all the time), but you certainly haven't demonstrated, or even really attempted to demonstrate, bias. All you've really said is: * Trump won * Your intuition told you he had a greater than 10% chance of winning before election day > throughout the entire election cycle the narrative was NYT vs. Trump. News organizations and journalists should report stories but should not become the story. It's important to remember that this narrative largely came (and continues to come) from Trump, and he benefited greatly from it.
tqi 9y ago
You seem very confident that "90% was not the right number", and I'm curious how you reached that conclusion. Do you have research that indicates the odds were actually way different, or does it just that it feel incorrect? If I win the lottery, is it misleading for people to state that my odds of winning were one in a million?
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? It's not misleading to say your odds of winning the lottery is one in a million because it IS one in a million, mathematically. NYT saying Hillary would win by 90% chance is NOT mathematics. Do you really think your analogy was adequate? My point was that people believe statistics, just like you believe that because NYT did it, it would be scientific and you should believe it. But that's where the danger lies. And an influential publication such as NYT should be ashamed of themselves for misleading people by trivializing things down to just a percentage and feeding it to the world, in realtime. I'm sure a lot of Trump fans who saw that poll on NYT that morning who didn't care for voting decided to go vote.
  - untog 9y ago
    > Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. Again, that's how probabilities work. Unless the prediction was 100% Hillary win then a Trump win is possible. This isn't a new concept, it happens in sports all the time. Odds are offered for betting, and every now and then there are upsets. That doesn't mean the odds are nonsense. What's the alternative? News organisations never even attempt to gauge whose campaign is more popular? I don't think that's realistic.
  - tqi 9y ago
    > Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? Actually yes, that is exactly what I'd like to find out more about. I'm asking why you are so sure that the NYT and other media publication odds were so wrong? Is it just that he won, therefore his odds must have been better than 10%? Most betting markets (which the HN set seems to put a lot of faith in) had Clinton as a 80ish % favorite (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wagering-on-us-presidential-election.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...), do you think they were a product of a misled public?

hsod 9y ago

> Whatever that number was about, it was pretty clear that 90% was not the right number Was it? Maybe 90% didn't match up with your intuition, but NYT wasn't making that number up out of whole cloth. That's what the polls were saying, as analyzed by the NYT polling staff. Maybe they were wrong (maybe they weren't-- things that have a 10% chance of happening happen all the time), but you certainly haven't demonstrated, or even really attempted to demonstrate, bias. All you've really said is: * Trump won * Your intuition told you he had a greater than 10% chance of winning before election day > throughout the entire election cycle the narrative was NYT vs. Trump. News organizations and journalists should report stories but should not become the story. It's important to remember that this narrative largely came (and continues to come) from Trump, and he benefited greatly from it.

tqi 9y ago

You seem very confident that "90% was not the right number", and I'm curious how you reached that conclusion. Do you have research that indicates the odds were actually way different, or does it just that it feel incorrect? If I win the lottery, is it misleading for people to state that my odds of winning were one in a million?

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? It's not misleading to say your odds of winning the lottery is one in a million because it IS one in a million, mathematically. NYT saying Hillary would win by 90% chance is NOT mathematics. Do you really think your analogy was adequate? My point was that people believe statistics, just like you believe that because NYT did it, it would be scientific and you should believe it. But that's where the danger lies. And an influential publication such as NYT should be ashamed of themselves for misleading people by trivializing things down to just a percentage and feeding it to the world, in realtime. I'm sure a lot of Trump fans who saw that poll on NYT that morning who didn't care for voting decided to go vote.
- untog 9y ago
  > Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. Again, that's how probabilities work. Unless the prediction was 100% Hillary win then a Trump win is possible. This isn't a new concept, it happens in sports all the time. Odds are offered for betting, and every now and then there are upsets. That doesn't mean the odds are nonsense. What's the alternative? News organisations never even attempt to gauge whose campaign is more popular? I don't think that's realistic.
- tqi 9y ago
  > Dude, that guy who was supposed to lose by 90% chance actually DID win. And you're telling me to prove this by showing you some research result? Actually yes, that is exactly what I'd like to find out more about. I'm asking why you are so sure that the NYT and other media publication odds were so wrong? Is it just that he won, therefore his odds must have been better than 10%? Most betting markets (which the HN set seems to put a lot of faith in) had Clinton as a 80ish % favorite (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wagering-on-us-presidential-election.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...), do you think they were a product of a misled public?