There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble

[mage21]

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com offers a compelling breakdown of the media bubble in the 2016 election:

Much of The New York Times’s coverage, for instance, implied that Clinton’s odds were close to 100 percent. In an article on Oct. 17 — more than three weeks before Election Day — they portrayed the race as being effectively over, the only question being whether Clinton should seek a landslide or instead assist down-ballot Democrats.

...political experts aren’t a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment. Once a consensus view is established, it tends to reinforce itself until and unless there’s very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber.

Also:

I recently reread James Surowiecki’s book “The Wisdom of Crowds” which, despite its name, spends as much time contemplating the shortcomings of such wisdom as it does celebrating its successes. Surowiecki argues that crowds usually make good predictions when they satisfy these four conditions:

1. Diversity of opinion. “Each person should have private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.”

2. Independence. “People’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them.”

3. Decentralization. “People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.”

4. Aggregation. “Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.”

Political journalism scores highly on the fourth condition, aggregation. ...But those other three conditions? Political journalism fails miserably along those dimensions.

The full article can be read here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-media-bubble/


Until the media moves away from it's echo chamber-based confidence, it will continue to misread the public's concerns and interests, and become more maligned in the minds of Americans.

[Damajin]

You act like saving the media should be a goal or something. Let them echo off each other until they're beyond deaf and useless to the State.

This is like trying to prevent a sworn enemy from committing suicide. Nah go ahead, no interest in stopping you.

[Darththeo]

All that proves is that there was an Anti-Trump Bubble, not a Liberal Bubble ... those aren't the same thing. I know many Republicans that don't support Trump who are otherwise conservative, because they feel he goes too far.

[Dezerte]

A prediction is very different from a polling, and at best you can claim incompetence that their prediction was that wildly off. And I wonder if media declaring the election as over, that politician X is going to win, is actually hurting politician X as well? I mean, who does it encourage to vote? Who is less likely to vote? "If my politician is such a sure win I don't have to vote" or "If my opposition politician is sure to win I must convince more fence-sitters to vote for my politician".

[einaschern]

All that proves is that there was an Anti-Trump Bubble, not a Liberal Bubble ... those aren't the same thing. I know many Republicans that don't support Trump who are otherwise conservative, because they feel he goes too far.

I'll agree with you to a point -- there was an anti-Trump bubble, because it even included Fox News. That said, liberal viewpoints in the majority of major media are those that are predominately presented, leaving those who have different views with few options. Tired of the slander on X issue? Read infowars! It's like the right-wing version of Jezebel or HuffPo, with decidedly less hate speech.

[Protean]

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com offers a compelling breakdown of the media bubble in the 2016 election:



Also:



The full article can be read here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-media-bubble/


Until the media moves away from it's echo chamber-based confidence, it will continue to misread the public's concerns and interests, and become more maligned in the minds of Americans.

Media is clickbait.
Their only concern is to get as many people as possible to view their ads.
They have filler between the ads to draw/keep your attention, this is what people mistake for credible/objective news.

If there's a perceived political bias it's because advertising to that specific group carries more profit.
News is just another industry, nothing magical or special about it.

Anyone who thinks there's some big liberal conspiracy is an imbecile.

[Macaquerie]

I'll agree with you to a point -- there was an anti-Trump bubble, because it even included Fox News. That said, liberal viewpoints in the majority of major media are those that are predominately presented, leaving those who have different views with few options. Tired of the slander on X issue? Read infowars! It's like the right-wing version of Jezebel or HuffPo, with decidedly less hate speech.

There was an anti-Trump bubble that included Trump, since nobody in his own campaign thought he was going to win. Arguably nobody in his own campaign WANTED him to win, because the whole goal was to launch Trump TV and rake in the dough by basically rehashing campaign rhetoric for the next four years, as opposed to actually having to think about policy and take responsibility for the consequences.

[Darththeo]

I'll agree with you to a point -- there was an anti-Trump bubble, because it even included Fox News. That said, liberal viewpoints in the majority of major media are those that are predominately presented, leaving those who have different views with few options. Tired of the slander on X issue? Read infowars! It's like the right-wing version of Jezebel or HuffPo, with decidedly less hate speech.

Infowars is worse then the two you listed for valid news (and I wouldn't consider the two you listed in anyway valid). Also, you can't slander any issue. You slander or libel people.

[Wyrt]

The media isn't liberal. Should have been abundantly clear when they backed Clinton over Sanders. They're pro-corporation because they're owned by corporations and they make their money from corporate advertisers.

Trump has been attacking the media for years. This wasn't something new he came up with for the campaign. One of his first campaign promises was making it easier to sue the media, because he had sued the media on numerous occasions in the past over stupid shit. When he come out swinging at the media from the start did you really expect them to be kind to him in return?

Also, I don't get why people keep bringing up the polls. The polls were right, more people did vote for Clinton. They just didn't vote for her in the states that mattered.

[Alydael]

You act like saving the media should be a goal or something. Let them echo off each other until they're beyond deaf and useless to the State.

This is like trying to prevent a sworn enemy from committing suicide. Nah go ahead, no interest in stopping you.

I agree, let em die- they deserve it and they did it to themselves 100%. Let's be honest, they sold out their profession and brought dishonor and disgrace to it. They have basically become clowns.

The other side of that is you couldn't save 'em even if you wanted. They are too far gone. They actually believe they are still doing their job! They don't even understand that a real journalist just reports the facts and doesn't "spin" it or inject their opinion.

What will happen (eventually) is that new journalists that witnessed this journalist catastrophe will return to the roots and slowly replace these stooges.

- - - Updated - - -

The media isn't liberal. Should have been abundantly clear when they backed Clinton over Sanders. They're pro-corporation because they're owned by corporations and they make their money from corporate advertisers.

Trump has been attacking the media for years. This wasn't something new he came up with for the campaign. One of his first campaign promises was making it easier to sue the media, because he had sued the media on numerous occasions in the past over stupid shit. When he come out swinging at the media from the start did you really expect them to be kind to him in return?

Also, I don't get why people keep bringing up the polls. The polls were right, more people did vote for Clinton. They just didn't vote for her in the states that mattered.

Because the polls predicted a win. The polls actually take the electoral college into account (they know about the electoral college, it isn't a secret). So they take into account which states matter and where people are voting.

If you listen to those tapes from the CNN network, networks were just not running the polls that showed a Trump win. They were only showing the ones that showed Hillary up. CNN is caught, on tape, doing it. I am sure other networks did too.

They tried to torpedo Trump (5x alliteration ftw) and he ran rings around them (and still is).

[Deleted]

Also, I don't get why people keep bringing up the polls. The polls were right, more people did vote for Clinton. They just didn't vote for her in the states that mattered.

Didn't the polls predict the literal opposite? Trump would get more votes but lose EC. I even remember seeing media articles and twitter praising EC for keeping Trump out. Then it made Trump president and the tide changed.

[Darththeo]

Because the polls predicted a win. The polls actually take the electoral college into account (they know about the electoral college, it isn't a secret). So they take into account which states matter and where people are voting.

If you listen to those tapes from the CNN network, networks were just not running the polls that showed a Trump win. They were only showing the ones that showed Hillary up. CNN is caught, on tape, doing it. I am sure other networks did too.

They tried to torpedo Trump (5x alliteration ftw) and he ran rings around them (and still is).

Polls do not take the electoral college into account. They never have and never will.

[Deleted]

If there was truly a liberal media bubble and Clinton was protected, they wouldn't have printed anything regarding wikileaks, and yet they did, they actually did more coverage that breibart on a lot of those e-mails. The media goes for who is better, Trump threatened and discredited the media every chance he had, and you are surprised they went for Clinton all the time?

[d00mGuArD]

I know many Republicans that don't support Trump who are otherwise conservative, because they feel he goes too far.

All the conservatives I know say that they don't support Trump. Usually, you can't openly claim to supporting him because of the huge amount of attacks ranging from getting fired to being bullied, that you will receive.

[Deleted]

I agree, let em die- they deserve it and they did it to themselves 100%. Let's be honest, they sold out their profession and brought dishonor and disgrace to it. They have basically become clowns.

The other side of that is you couldn't save 'em even if you wanted. They are too far gone. They actually believe they are still doing their job! They don't even understand that a real journalist just reports the facts and doesn't "spin" it or inject their opinion.

What will happen (eventually) is that new journalists that witnessed this journalist catastrophe will return to the roots and slowly replace these stooges.

- - - Updated - - -



Because the polls predicted a win. The polls actually take the electoral college into account (they know about the electoral college, it isn't a secret). So they take into account which states matter and where people are voting.

If you listen to those tapes from the CNN network, networks were just not running the polls that showed a Trump win. They were only showing the ones that showed Hillary up. CNN is caught, on tape, doing it. I am sure other networks did too.

They tried to torpedo Trump (5x alliteration ftw) and he ran rings around them (and still is).

All the republican or right winged websites did polls on a 65 to 35 republican-democrat ratio.

The polls necessarily weren't wrong, by the end Hillary only had narrow wins left in the blue firewall states.

Obviously when it's a victory within 1%, it doesn't take many voters to turn that win into a loss.

-

But rest assured, when those states see that Trump can't bring those jobs back to the factories, because automation is only going to speed up and more jobs are going to drop regardless of how many he can bring back, they'll be swapping to blue the next election, my prediction is that mid term is going to make or break Trump's presidency.

[Darththeo]

Polls are also not promises. People can say they'll vote for <insert name> but unless they actually go out and do so then it means little. I think that, combined with a misunderstanding about the odds that were reported, is what cost Clinton the EC.

That's true too. Also, polls will tend to skew to those who have more vocal supporters on that because if selected for a poll, less vocal supporters will often decline or say uncertain.

- - - Updated - - -

If there was truly a liberal media bubble and Clinton was protected, they wouldn't have printed anything regarding wikileaks, and yet they did, they actually did more coverage that breibart on a lot of those e-mails. The media goes for who is better, Trump threatened and discredited the media every chance he had, and you are surprised they went for Clinton all the time?

The email was a non issue. Benghazi was always a non issue. Clinton had nothing directly to do with the DNC actions in the primary (but why would they support Sanders who is for dismantling of the DNC and RNC?). So in a topic about Fake News (ie Liberal Media Bubble) ... you wanted more Fake news? Honestly, the fact those stories got so played out is why I lost faith in the media ... they should have been dead with all the facts we know.

[Deleted]

um... what exactly is wrong with having a consensus on a issue untill there is compelling evidence for a contrary position? you make it sound like a bad thing but to me thats how normal people act?

the bad thing would be if they didn't change their position in the face of compelling evidence.

[Alydael]

All the republican or right winged websites did polls on a 65 to 35 republican-democrat ratio.

The polls necessarily weren't wrong, by the end Hillary only had narrow wins left in the blue firewall states.

Obviously when it's a victory within 1%, it doesn't take many voters to turn that win into a loss.

-

But rest assured, when those states see that Trump can't bring those jobs back to the factories, because automation is only going to speed up and more jobs are going to drop regardless of how many he can bring back, they'll be swapping to blue the next election, my prediction is that mid term is going to make or break Trump's presidency.

It's difficult for me to have perspective on it because I don't watch the polls, or follow the media. I am independent, so I don't like any of the media outlets that spin left or right. I try to get my news from the source sites (the sites which give the journalists the facts), there is very little spin there.

For the election, I watched the source sites and actually watched the candidates speeches (they were all on youtube). It was very clear that Trump was going to win that. There was no one at Hillary's rallys, I mean no one. It was cringe worthy.

Trump's rallys were packed. It was almost like a sporting event. I don't see how anyone watching the source data and actually watching the rallys could have predicted a Hillary win.....

- - - Updated - - -

Polls do not take the electoral college into account. They never have and never will.

Of course they do. I was watching poll stories in which they were actually taking districts into account.

Also, how could a poll that doesn't take the electoral college into account ever possibly be considered valid? The electoral college determines the President (the pollsters know this). Why would anyone (in their right mind) follow a poll that doesn't take the electoral college into account?

[Wyrt]

It's difficult for me to have perspective on it because I don't watch the polls, or follow the media. I am independent, so I don't like any of the media outlets that spin left or right. I try to get my news from the source sites (the sites which give the journalists the facts), there is very little spin there.

For the election, I watched the source sites and actually watched the candidates speeches (they were all on youtube). It was very clear that Trump was going to win that. There was no one at Hillary's rallys, I mean no one. It was cringe worthy.

Trump's rallys were packed. It was almost like a sporting event. I don't see how anyone watching the source data and actually watching the rallys could have predicted a Hillary win.....

In the past campaigns have virtually ended for things as silly as misspelling potato or doing a stupid yell. Based on past campaigns, Trump should have had no chance with his constant lying and insane conspiracy theories, but for some reason he did.

[Deleted]

Polls do not take the electoral college into account. They never have and never will.

Yes they do. They even have maps for that. It explicitly shows which candidate is going to win, likely to win, tied, not likely to win, or not going to win at all, and based of that they make their electoral prediction. However let's not forget some states were much closer than they predicted, which isn't really a big problem because those wins were judged on a 1-2% victory margin, if you take the error margin from that, you don't have much margin at all, if you even have any.

Mind you that Trump barely won himself, if Hillary had slightly more turnout in PA and MI, Trump would have had the lowest margin win in history, 268 to 270. Both those states had a difference of merely 80000 voters. So yeah it's much closer than it looks, and the polls the few days before the election predicted a Hillary win with around 280 electoral votes, which is quite close.