18 ms·

It seems kind of predictable that "real news" sites would run stories on how "fake news" is an epidemic. Maybe this is too much speculation but it seems like d

It seems kind of predictable that "real news" sites would run stories on how "fake news" is an epidemic. Maybe this is too much speculation but it seems like deflecting. Fake news sites weren't responsible for "real news'" complete failure to predict a Trump victory. I've seen little reporting on the attitudes of real Trump supporters. It's mostly reporting of noisy flawed polls and simplistic opinion pieces on why Trump is bad/hitler/stupid and dismissals of his supporters as racists. IMO I don't think fake news is the problem either (though it is a problem, just not a proportionately large one). It has shades of demonizing independent news sources. Personally I can't stand any cable news source, I prefer to watch "Democracy Now!" I prefer The Intercept, Truthdig, and Jacobin to the NYT or WaPo. They don't peddle fake news whatsoever. Edit: fake news was not responsible for this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZVgktWQAAXu8g?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZVgktWQAAXu8g?format=jpg&name=...

randomgyatwork 10y ago
It is deflecting, they were so wrong about the election, so rather than take responsibility they have to blame someone else.
tankenmate 10y ago
Well I would say that the numbers strongly suggest that the Democrats lost the election rather than the Republican winning it. Votes for both parties were substantially down compared to 2012; it's just that the Democrats failed in their turnout and lost ground to the Republicans, especially in "battleground" states.[0] [0] http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout... [EDIT] fixed grammar typo
matt4077 10y ago
In regards to the predictions, it's important to understand that their role in it was the same as it is with the weather forecast: they're just reporting what people come up with. Those people, the pollsters and aggregators, were indeed wrong with regards to the winner. It's however important to note that the polls were less than 3% off. It just happened to make quite a difference in the winner-take-all system. 538 was arguably more right than others: their model sensed the uncertainty and gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. Compared to the NYT/WaPo/WSJ, the self-styled outsiders like The Intercept are incredibly biased, or just bad. It's sometimes hard to see how information flows, but barely any actual news starts at The Incept/Breitbart/HuffPost/etc.
- saynsedit 10y ago
  What is The Intercept's bias?
  - underbluewaters 10y ago
    They are harshly critical of unchallenged power, so of Obama, US foreign policy, and Clinton. People perceive that as a bias against Democrats but I'd expect we're about to see some good reporting against the Republicans now.
    - saynsedit 10y ago
      I don't see being critical of people in power as a bias, unless you're saying that they don't spend enough time being critical of people not in power.
- bubbleRefuge 10y ago
  Don't forget HuffPo's models giving HRC an 90% chance a few days before.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Yeah, HuffPo is just one of the leeches feeding of actual journalism. I really enjoyed the little fight they got themselves into the day before the election – their failure is/was to consider the errors in state polls to be independent.
  - code_duck 10y ago
    That could have been completely correct... and the card was drawn for one of those 10%. To test that probability empirically, we'd have to have the election at least a couple dozen times, right?
    - MatthaeusHarris 10y ago
      Simultaneously and independently, with exact copies of all registered voters.
tzs 10y ago
> I've seen little reporting on the attitudes of real Trump supporters. It's mostly reporting of noisy flawed polls and simplistic opinion pieces on why Trump is bad/hitler/stupid and dismissals of his supporters as racists. I've heard quite a bit on NPR where they have gone to some of the swing states that went for Trump and interviewed assorted Trump voters.
basch 10y ago
if the "real news" spent half the time they spent explaining why not to vote for the other candidate, explaining the virtues of their candidate .... edit: should have clicked your picture before commenting

randomgyatwork 10y ago

It is deflecting, they were so wrong about the election, so rather than take responsibility they have to blame someone else.

tankenmate 10y ago

Well I would say that the numbers strongly suggest that the Democrats lost the election rather than the Republican winning it. Votes for both parties were substantially down compared to 2012; it's just that the Democrats failed in their turnout and lost ground to the Republicans, especially in "battleground" states.[0] [0] http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout... [EDIT] fixed grammar typo

matt4077 10y ago

In regards to the predictions, it's important to understand that their role in it was the same as it is with the weather forecast: they're just reporting what people come up with. Those people, the pollsters and aggregators, were indeed wrong with regards to the winner. It's however important to note that the polls were less than 3% off. It just happened to make quite a difference in the winner-take-all system. 538 was arguably more right than others: their model sensed the uncertainty and gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. Compared to the NYT/WaPo/WSJ, the self-styled outsiders like The Intercept are incredibly biased, or just bad. It's sometimes hard to see how information flows, but barely any actual news starts at The Incept/Breitbart/HuffPost/etc.

saynsedit 10y ago
What is The Intercept's bias?
- underbluewaters 10y ago
  They are harshly critical of unchallenged power, so of Obama, US foreign policy, and Clinton. People perceive that as a bias against Democrats but I'd expect we're about to see some good reporting against the Republicans now.
  - saynsedit 10y ago
    I don't see being critical of people in power as a bias, unless you're saying that they don't spend enough time being critical of people not in power.
bubbleRefuge 10y ago
Don't forget HuffPo's models giving HRC an 90% chance a few days before.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Yeah, HuffPo is just one of the leeches feeding of actual journalism. I really enjoyed the little fight they got themselves into the day before the election – their failure is/was to consider the errors in state polls to be independent.
- code_duck 10y ago
  That could have been completely correct... and the card was drawn for one of those 10%. To test that probability empirically, we'd have to have the election at least a couple dozen times, right?
  - MatthaeusHarris 10y ago
    Simultaneously and independently, with exact copies of all registered voters.

tzs 10y ago

> I've seen little reporting on the attitudes of real Trump supporters. It's mostly reporting of noisy flawed polls and simplistic opinion pieces on why Trump is bad/hitler/stupid and dismissals of his supporters as racists. I've heard quite a bit on NPR where they have gone to some of the swing states that went for Trump and interviewed assorted Trump voters.

basch 10y ago

if the "real news" spent half the time they spent explaining why not to vote for the other candidate, explaining the virtues of their candidate .... edit: should have clicked your picture before commenting