3 ms·

Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Tim

Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. They were basically declaring a winner up front, and contributed to the spectacle of total upset. Now as an outlet, it just spews shit on a daily basis. And I mean shit. It’s been unreadable since then. The last time I observed good coverage on anything from The New York Times was during the first two years of the 2003 Iraq war. Since then, garbage. Hot garbage.

magicalist 8y ago
> Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. > For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. It's trivial to verify that neither of these things are true[1][2], so...just adding to the garbage, I guess? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#trend https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president
- smithsenn 8y ago
  Still, so laughably bad are the predictions, that you kind of prove the point being made. They were, more or less, calling the election, and in retrospect, trying to drive results. Perhaps it’s debateable to say no one really wanted Trump to win, given what we’ve now seen, but this points very seriously to the fact that The New York Times is not at all an objective news source, which makes them as worthless as their rivals.
  - creddit 8y ago
    I'm not sure you understand probabilities when you drive at discrediting the NYT. Their last prediction given in the linked series gave Trump a 15% chance at winning. That's about equal to the probability of rolling a 10 or more with a two six-sided dice (16.7%). Would you find it laughable that someone looked at you before the come-out roll in a game of Craps and said there was only a 16.7% chance of rolling a ten or more and then it happened? I wouldn't. Further, I think if you wanted to drive the results of an election you're far more likely to give your chosen candidate a _lower_ chance of winning in order to drive as much support as possible. If as a voter you thought it a foregone conclusion that your preferred candidate was going to win, it's not likely you see much reason to vote. All of that said, the NYT is clearly constantly pushing particular agendas (just look at the "Business" section for a start) and has dropped so significantly in own esteem that I will very likely unsubscribe soon. However, when criticizing an organization we should do so objectively and point to their true flaws and not use misunderstandings of probabilities.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

magicalist 8y ago

> Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. > For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. It's trivial to verify that neither of these things are true[1][2], so...just adding to the garbage, I guess? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#trend https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president

smithsenn 8y ago
Still, so laughably bad are the predictions, that you kind of prove the point being made. They were, more or less, calling the election, and in retrospect, trying to drive results. Perhaps it’s debateable to say no one really wanted Trump to win, given what we’ve now seen, but this points very seriously to the fact that The New York Times is not at all an objective news source, which makes them as worthless as their rivals.
- creddit 8y ago
  I'm not sure you understand probabilities when you drive at discrediting the NYT. Their last prediction given in the linked series gave Trump a 15% chance at winning. That's about equal to the probability of rolling a 10 or more with a two six-sided dice (16.7%). Would you find it laughable that someone looked at you before the come-out roll in a game of Craps and said there was only a 16.7% chance of rolling a ten or more and then it happened? I wouldn't. Further, I think if you wanted to drive the results of an election you're far more likely to give your chosen candidate a _lower_ chance of winning in order to drive as much support as possible. If as a voter you thought it a foregone conclusion that your preferred candidate was going to win, it's not likely you see much reason to vote. All of that said, the NYT is clearly constantly pushing particular agendas (just look at the "Business" section for a start) and has dropped so significantly in own esteem that I will very likely unsubscribe soon. However, when criticizing an organization we should do so objectively and point to their true flaws and not use misunderstandings of probabilities.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]