News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The fivethirtyeight R package. Parent comment

Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by gfosco on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:22PM (#13421333)
Because they keep publishing fake news, hiding inconvenient truths, and lying. They report any and all unverified anti-Trump rumors, no matter how ridiculous, but refuse to report fairly when legitimate accusations are made against others. I used to like CNN, but over the past 2 years they have embarrassed themselves terribly, and their ratings show it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by ivraatiems on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:24PM (#13421354)
Can you give some examples of things they have published which are fake, or lies that have been exposed? Most of the cases where people have claimed this, it's been due to a critical failure to read the reporting CNN actually did.

For instance, in the recent case where Buzzfeed released a massively unsubstantiated intelligence "dossier," CNN reported that Buzzfeed had done it and that it had been given to Trump and Obama in a briefing. Those two pieces of information are important and valid to report. CNN never said the document was accurate and didn't itself publish it specifically because it's not verifiable. How is that "fake news?"

Edit: You also did not answer my second question.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by legostormtroopr on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:51PM (#13421662)
CNN said “it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents [the Hilary emails from wikileaks]. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”

Thats fake and a lie, and they were exposed quickly about that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by ivraatiems on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:52PM (#13421683)
Agreed. It's a lie, and a particularly boneheaded one.

Is that occurrence enough to conclude that all their reporting, on everything, is flawed? Because if so I think I could find similar examples from effectively any mainstream source, and any partisan (HuffPo, Breitbart, et.c) ones as well.

Who exactly should we trust when our criteria exclude everyone?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by gfosco on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @05:06PM (#13421856)
No one said everything they do is fake news. I said it would be hard to have confidence in the data. Yuge difference.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by ivraatiems on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @05:20PM (#13422002)
So there is reporting from CNN that you would trust? What reporting is that?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by meej on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @09:27PM (#13423483)
That is an opinion piece at one of the Washington Post's blogs, the Volokh Conspiracy, it is not a news article. Furthermore, the blog authors are not Post employees and they are editorially independent from the rest of the newspaper.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by freehunter on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @09:21AM (#13426425)
That being said, I strongly believe that reputable news sources should not publish unmoderated opinion blogs from their own domain. No matter how many times the page says "opinion" or "blog" or "unaffiliated", if it's published on their site, on their platform, on their domain, it's going to be equated with that news outlet.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by gfosco on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:54PM (#13421708)
February. False story about Carson dropping out. Their own "fact checker" lied about it.

August. CNN edits footage of sister of man shot by Milwaukee police to make it sound like she was calling for peace. She was calling for riots in white cities.

November. Random street interview? Nope, their own cameraman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSfS2u-SmoI

Repeatedly and continually edits/mistates Trump remarks, not just on Muslims and Mexicans.

Repeatedly libels Assange with false statements about his charges.

"hands up don't shoot" never happened.

The list goes on and on, and your second question is irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by ivraatiems on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:59PM (#13421782)
It's totally relevant to the conversation we were having about 538. You should answer it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by gfosco on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @05:59PM (#13422311)
You asked for examples, I gave you examples and you disappeared.

My original post made an analogy about CNN. It has very little / nothing to do with 538. There, second question answered.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by Dobbs on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @04:42PM (#13421570)
I don't think you know what fake news is. It isn't biased news, its not incorrect news, or unsubstantiated rumors.

It is websites that steal CSS and styles from official news sites. That then create a fake news paper and publish 100% fiction. The Denver Guardian http://www.snopes.com/fbi-agent-murder-suicide/ is an example of "Fake News". Nothing published by CNN or FiveThirtyEight is fake news. Incorrect, sure, possibly biased but not "Fake News".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by gfosco on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @05:15PM (#13421956)
You don't get to redefine fake news. I'm a huge fan of real journalism, and the ethics and integrity behind it. When journalists fail those ethics and report things they haven't vetted, that is not news, it's fake news.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by ivraatiems on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @05:25PM (#13422047)
Sorry, no, your definition is the one that's wrong.[1]

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website (links to numerous examples of proper usage)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by gfosco on Tuesday January 17, 2017 @05:56PM (#13422292)
"Fake news website" !== "Fake news" and Wikipedia is not the arbiter of all truth either.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The fivethirtyeight R package by lukejduncan on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @02:02AM (#13424642)
Nope, definitely your definition that's wrong. One of many examples http://pca.st/VnJY
[ Parent | on HN ]