Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[J-DONK]

We have a thread - i started one a while ago. I dont know the particulars of this race, but i do remember seeing that she won even though she was outspent by a lot and never led in the polls.

I'll look for it in a bit. We usually get a zinger about cope when talking about it in Biden vs Trump. This is a good example of it in a blue state, that really only effects Dems. I honestly don't trust any polling right now.

I have no idea if it's a fundamental issue in sampling, or what.

 

[coldseat]

I'll look for it in a bit. We usually get a zinger about cope when talking about it in Biden vs Trump. This is a good example of it in a blue state, that really only effects Dems. I honestly don't trust any polling right now.

I have no idea if it's a fundamental issue in sampling, or what.

Polling has been worse than ever lately. Much worse than in 2016. At least those results were within the margin of error, if I'm not mistaken. Lately these pre-election polling have been wildly off base.

 

[CoolBrees]

I don't doubt that these polls are being manipulated by both parties

Dems want this to "feel" close. Need it to be neck and neck to drive an otherwise tepid voter pool to the polls.

Everybody thought Hillary had it in the bag so it gave people an out for not voting for her and just staying home.

Republicans have to keep up the shroud that more than just their base will support a convicted felon.

 

[UriUT]

Polling has been worse than ever lately. Much worse than in 2016. At least those results were within the margin of error, if I'm not mistaken. Lately these pre-election polling have been wildly off base.

There is something wrong at the New York Times

From presidential polls to refusing to report on Trump’s stumbles, things aren’t adding up at the Gray Lady

www.salon.com

A favorite of poll skeptics is its sampling bias. How did the New York Times come up with a polling sample that included 36 percent rural voters when the 2020 proportion of rural voters was 19 percent?

Somehow, the poll’s sample of female voters was equally skewed. The poll found Trump winning the female vote by one percent, when Biden carried women in 2020 by 11 points. The Times wants you to ignore that in between, all three of Trump’s Supreme Court justices quarterbacked the Dobbs decision overturning women’s constitutional right to abortion, followed almost immediately by states banning abortion all over the country, many with no exceptions for rape or incest.

The Times doesn’t say how it squares its poll numbers with the fact that women turned out in huge numbers to help win referendums confirming a right to abortion, including in such Republican strongholds as Kansas and Kentucky, and handed every special election to Democratic candidates in the bargain. They just want you to believe there’s been a 12-point swing toward Trump among women, with no evidence except, poof! It happened!

The poll shows that Trump still has the support of nearly every Republican who voted for him in 2020 — this in the face of the fact that between 30 and 40 percent of primary voters have chosen another candidate than Trump. Those people are not poll respondents. They’re voters.

The Times/Siena poll also somehow comes up with 12 percent support among Democrats for Rep. Dean Phillips, who has yet to get more than two percent of the vote in a primary. Even Phillips himself posted a tweet that said “When the NYT/Siena poll shows me at 12%, you better believe it’s flawed. Only 5% even know who I am.”

 

[MT15]

Ownership of major media outlets, what some on here call “corporate” media (lol), definitely leans Republican. They are not enamored of Biden or his policies. This can and does seep out into the publications themselves, even though there are individual reporters who lean pro-Biden. Journalistic standards will cause individual reporters to try to erase any personal bias they may have and report things “fairly”. Ownership feels no such burden.

This is why saying that corporate media (lol) is in the bag for Biden is just gaslighting. Simply untrue.

 

[MT15]

Irresponsible journalism. Simply bonkers.

 

[SaintForLife]

Lol

 

[SaintForLife]

Still waiting on why SFL was so proud to expose an expunged arrest. He who supposedly cares so much about privacy that he proudly violated a woman’s privacy on here. I guess it depends on whose privacy right? Her privacy doesn’t count, clearly.

Crickets.

I exposed an expunged arrest by posting an article? You know court records are usually public information right?

Clarke was asked during her confirmation hearing if she had ever been arrested. She said no and that was an obvious lie. Then CNN covered for her and tried to deflect the issue at hand.

She seems like a perfect fit for the Biden administration:

 

[MT15]

EXPUNGED. Look it up before you embarrass yourself further. She had zero obligation to expose as expunged arrest and whoever did so violated her privacy. Good lord.

 

[SaintForLife]

EXPUNGED. Look it up before you embarrass yourself further. She had zero obligation to expose as expunged arrest and whoever did so violated her privacy. Good lord.

Expunged doesn't change the fact that she was actually arrested and she lied in her confirmation hearing.

When she was asked if she had “ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person", the correct answer would have been yes but it's been expunged from my record.

Privacy? She was being confirmed by Congress.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Expunged doesn't change the fact that she was actually arrested

No, she was not. It did not happen.

and she lied in her confirmation hearing.

The lie would have been her answering YES.

When she was asked if she had “ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person", the correct answer would have been yes but it's been expunged from my record.

No, the correct and legal answer is the one she gave. You should be angry that this matter is even being discussed, being that you are supposed to be this staunch privacy advocate, but you have been manipulated by others to be angry at her for not revealing an arrest that did not happen.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, she was not. It did not happen.

The lie would have been her answering YES.

No, the correct and legal answer is the one she gave. You should be angry that this matter is even being discussed, being that you are supposed to be this staunch privacy advocate, but you have been manipulated by others to be angry at her for not revealing an arrest that did not happen.

Did the expungement include going back in a time machine and making sure she was never arrested?

Privacy on public records in a confirmation hearing?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Did the expungement include going back in a time machine and making sure she was never arrested?

Privacy on public records in a confirmation hearing?

Did the EXPUNGED ARREST go back in time and made sure that the arrest did not happen?

Dude.

EXPUNGED. Look it up before you embarrass yourself further. She had zero obligation to expose as expunged arrest and whoever did so violated her privacy. Good lord.

 

[MT15]

Expunged doesn't change the fact that she was actually arrested and she lied in her confirmation hearing.

When she was asked if she had “ever been arrested for or accused of committing a violent crime against any person", the correct answer would have been yes but it's been expunged from my record.

Privacy? She was being confirmed by Congress.

NO. You are not required to disclose an expunged arrest. That’s the entire purpose of having it expunged.

It is a serious violation of her privacy for the craven GOP to bring it up in a public hearing. But you are not a principled person, you are a partisan only. So you don’t care.

 

[SaintForLife]

NO. You are not required to disclose an expunged arrest. That’s the entire purpose of having it expunged.

It is a serious violation of her privacy for the craven GOP to bring it up in a public hearing. But you are not a principled person, you are a partisan only. So you don’t care.

The expungement removed it from her record. That doesn't mean it never happened.

She was asked if she was ever arrested for violence & she had been. So she lied during her confirmation and CNN covered for her.

What do you think someone should be able to hide from Congress during a confirmation hearing?

 

[MT15]

The expungement removed it from her record. That doesn't mean it never happened.

She was asked if she was ever arrested for violence & she had been. So she lied during her confirmation and CNN covered for her.

What do you think someone should be able to hide from Congress during a confirmation hearing?

You’re wrong. Like most of the time.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The expungement removed it from her record. That doesn't mean it never happened.

She was asked if she was ever arrested for violence & she had been. So she lied during her confirmation and CNN covered for her.

What do you think someone should be able to hide from Congress during a confirmation hearing?

The entire point of expunging a record is to erase it from existence. As far as the law is concerned, she was not arrested.

 

[MT15]

Still waiting for any acknowledgment of any sort from SFL that the shameless GOP members of Congress violated her privacy.