Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump
by sprafa on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @03:39PM
(#13544874)
There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are more uninformed
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump
by williamle8300 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @03:52PM
(#13545026)
What you're saying is anedoctal. Ultimately, Fox News were the few news organizations that knew that Trump was going to win by a landslide. Every other news organization were all singing that Hillary had a 99% chance of a victory (I'm not being hyperbolic with the 99%).
ONE news organization had 99%. More reasonable and measured ones had 60%.
Re:Reuters' position on covering Trump
by smsm42 on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @08:34PM
(#13547265)
Nate Silver has taken a major beating from pretty much everyone in the press when he put Clinton's chances as something like 2/3 IIRC (don't remember the exact number, but it was high, but not as high as 90%). Lots of pundits all around were berating him for being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and inflating Trump's numbers just to draw attention to himself and so on and so forth - right up to the day Trump won. I don't remember any measured ones with 60%. Of course, I can't claim I've seen them all. Which ones were?