Re:The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
by dragonwriter on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:16PM
(#14464840)
> Everyone was wondering (both pro-trump and anti-trump) where the "90%" came from
No, they weren't, because everyone paying even a little bit of attention to the issues around aggregating polling numbers new that 538 had already dissected the problem with that long before the election—most prediction models were falsely assuming that variations in outcome from.the poll averages between different states were independent events when history shows that such deviations are strongly correlated. Which is why 538, working with essentially the same polling data as everyone else, had Clinton's chance of losing much higher than NYT and some other predictors.
> To me, THAT's the ultimate "fake news".
Predictions of the future are (and were presented as) analysis, not news. To be "fake news", it has to firsr pretend to be news, that is, reports of things that have occurred.
No, they weren't, because everyone paying even a little bit of attention to the issues around aggregating polling numbers new that 538 had already dissected the problem with that long before the election—most prediction models were falsely assuming that variations in outcome from.the poll averages between different states were independent events when history shows that such deviations are strongly correlated. Which is why 538, working with essentially the same polling data as everyone else, had Clinton's chance of losing much higher than NYT and some other predictors.
> To me, THAT's the ultimate "fake news".
Predictions of the future are (and were presented as) analysis, not news. To be "fake news", it has to firsr pretend to be news, that is, reports of things that have occurred.