Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What would you think if every network weather person predicted clear, sunny, and warm for the rest of the week and instead it snowed six inches? Maybe you wouldn't assume they were all crooks, but you'd probably start trusting them less.
Well no that poster don't. The problem is today is people find news that supports their stance and not change it. People have the ability to read from far more sources than ever before but now they only choose to read ones that fit their view. It is the confirmation bias on steroids. I listen to various outlets: CNN, ABC News, PBS, Young Turks and RT America as well as read from Arizona Republic from time to time.
CNN, ABC, the Arizona Republic and even PBS are all mainstream media. The first three are from big corporations. CNN is owned by Warner, ABC is owned by Disney and the Arizona Republic is owned by Tenga (what use to be called Gannett.) All are big companies. Warner and Disney, everyone knows. Tenga maybe not. Tenga is a print news company that owns the USA Today who also owns tv networks. Note PBS is NOT a big corporation, it gets its money from government grants and donations from viewers.
RT is good but they have a very big pro-Russia bias as seen in email-gate and the Crimea crisis from 2014. Yet, otherwise they are a pretty good outside the mainstream source that gives time to the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Jill Stein a and Gary Johnson both have been on RT pretty regularly during the election cycle.
The Young Turks gets its money from advertising, YouTube views and also its subscription base. It is entirely small. The problem is, it is very left leaning so people who are on the right might not like it. But they are fair and put on blast politicians who are against taking away rights or putting corporate interests first whether they are Democrat or Republican.
BBC, the Guardian and Al Jazeera are at the top of my list when I want to fact check something in the current news. As far as news regarding current events in the middle east, I go directly to three of my ex co-workers all of whom are Syrians.
No. The point is that its not merely a matter of interpretation when the facts deviate from what was predicted by such a large degree, by so many people. If it was not outright willful fabrication by networks who all wanted the same thing, but gross misinformation by people who started with their conclusion and found a way to stretch the facts to fit it, that's a distinction without a difference.
19 Pages and ive gotten at lease 5 or 6 "Its Obama fault"
For some people, Truth and facts will never be good to them. They believe what they want to believe.
No. The point is that its not merely a matter of interpretation when the facts deviate from what was predicted by such a large degree, by so many people. If it was not outright willful fabrication by networks who all wanted the same thing, but gross misinformation by people who started with their conclusion and found a way to stretch the facts to fit it, that's a distinction without a difference.
For the most part, the polling errors were not due to anything that you are claiming Most polls accurately predicted that she would win about about 2%, The pollsters simply failed to identify how much rural support Trump actually had. My SIL lives in Missouri and we talked about those issues before the election. She said that she and her husband simply didn't vote for anyone for POTUS. She said that probably 3/4 of her town voted for Trump and if anyone voted for Clinton they didn't admit it publicly. She also said that she talked to many of the residents and not one of them were ever contacted by a pollster. So my thought is that they just didn't poll those small rural communities across the US to the extent that they should have. My guess is that the pollsters learned their lesson and will correct for that in future polls.
The world is not composed of multiple conspiracies all dedicated to damaging conservatives. Personally I felt that Trump had about a 50-60% chance of winning after the first Comey announcement, the timing of it and the wording that made is sound like she had committed a criminal act had to have had a huge impact on undecided voters, the later announcement that it was all about nothing was too little, too late. You just can't put that genie back in the bottle.
For the most part, the polling errors were not due to anything that you are claiming Most polls accurately predicted that she would win about about 2%, The pollsters simply failed to identify how much rural support Trump actually had. My SIL lives in Missouri and we talked about those issues before the election. She said that she and her husband simply didn't vote for anyone for POTUS. She said that probably 3/4 of her town voted for Trump and if anyone voted for Clinton they didn't admit it publicly. She also said that she talked to many of the residents and not one of them were ever contacted by a pollster. So my thought is that they just didn't poll those small rural communities across the US to the extent that they should have. My guess is that the pollsters learned their lesson and will correct for that in future polls.
The world is not composed of multiple conspiracies all dedicated to damaging conservatives. Personally I felt that Trump had about a 50-60% chance of winning after the first Comey announcement, the timing of it and the wording that made is sound like she had committed a criminal act had to have had a huge impact on undecided voters, the later announcement that it was all about nothing was too little, too late. You just can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Shortly after the election I was listening to a couple of reporters from RT News who had been in North Carolina on an unrelated story, and they remarked how impossible it would have been to miss the Trump signs everywhere. No signs for HRC. Yes, the MSM all failed to take notice of Trump's rural support. This was not inadvertent oversight, but the result of people looking for facts to fit their beliefs (I saw a video on YouTube recently from some MSNBC reporter admitting as much). The MSM managed to not see the real facts by not looking for them where they might find them. Is there a moral difference when you lie by omission?
As I've said before here on CD, there does not have to be an overt agreement to conspire in order for people to recognize where their interests coincide and act in concert with each other. On the other hand, when it comes to the big MSM, IMO an actual conspiracy does not seem so far-fetched.
It happens that Comey did not recommend prosecution, and the AG didn't overrule him, so she never got prosecuted and we will never know if she was guilty of a criminal act. But if Comey's announcement made it sound like she had committed a criminal act its because her actions keeping private communications networks and disposing of emails were consistent with that interpretation. Otherwise none of it would have been an issue.
Shortly after the election I was listening to a couple of reporters from RT News who had been in North Carolina on an unrelated story, and they remarked how impossible it would have been to miss the Trump signs everywhere. No signs for HRC. Yes, the MSM all failed to take notice of Trump's rural support. This was not inadvertent oversight, but the result of people looking for facts to fit their beliefs (I saw a video on YouTube recently from some MSNBC reporter admitting as much). The MSM managed to not see the real facts by not looking for them where they might find them. Is there a moral difference when you lie by omission?
As I've said before here on CD, there does not have to be an overt agreement to conspire in order for people to recognize where their interests coincide and act in concert with each other. On the other hand, when it comes to the big MSM, IMO an actual conspiracy does not seem so far-fetched.
It happens that Comey did not recommend prosecution, and the AG didn't overrule him, so she never got prosecuted and we will never know if she was guilty of a criminal act. But if Comey's announcement made it sound like she had committed a criminal act its because her actions keeping private communications networks and disposing of emails were consistent with that interpretation. Otherwise none of it would have been an issue.
Pollsters do not drive around North Carolina and look for signs, they never have, so that is largely irrelevant. And please quit trying to spin this into some MSM bias, Fox always has had a conservative slant, why were their polls the same as everyone elses?
And I am talking about the announcement Comey made on October 28th. Why he did that, I don't know but maybe we will soon because there is a FOIA request for the search warrant to see what (if any) evidence he had to reopen the investigation.
I am trying to have a discussion with you without bringing political bias into it? Don't you think that two adults should be able to argue issues instead of rhetoric?
Thread closed for the time being. Political discussion may be resumed over at politics and controversies. I believe there's a fake news thread there already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
