New Board

For refugees from MyWay and Tek Board II, and for anyone else wishing to participate.


    Media Finally Admit They Have a Credibility Problem

    Share
    avatar
    sinister_midget
    Admin

    Posts : 1883
    Join date : 2016-08-26
    Age : 64
    Location : Home

    Media Finally Admit They Have a Credibility Problem

    Post  sinister_midget on Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:31 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving: Media Finally Admit They Have a Credibility Problem, Face Industry-Wide Trust Crisis

    Several top reporters at establishment media outlets are finally admitting, more than two weeks after the election, that their industry has a credibility problem and has much work to do to regain the trust of their readers in the wake of Republican Donald J. Trump’s landslide electoral college victory over Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    “I think one of the things that is going to get talked about is this predictive modeling and how helpful it is or not,” Jeremy Peters, a New York Times reporter, told Breitbart News Daily for the Thanksgiving radio special on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 on Thursday morning.

    Predictive modeling?

    "Oh, she was just telling you a little white predictive modeling!"

    Doesn't have quite the same ring to it as the original word, lie.

    “Remember, all of these models—New York Times included—had Trump at 80 or 90 percent chance of losing. So what we don’t do a good enough job of is explaining to people exactly what those are. Those models are saying that if the election was held at this moment in time, this person has an 80 percent chance of winning. That’s not how they’re marketed to our readers,” Peters said. “That’s not how readers understand them, however. We don’t do a good enough job of saying that this does not say that Hillary Clinton has a 90 percent chance of winning. How useful those are, if we do really explain to people that, I don’t like predicting things. I don’t know. That’s something that journalistic organizations all across the country have to reassess. And I think that gets into a larger question of ultimately what our jobs are as journalists. Do we try to explain things to readers? Do we try to explain to them, for example, the Trump phenomenon that a lot of us missed, that a lot of people openly scorned and scoffed at and ignored? Do we explain what the roots are of that politically? Or do we just try to give people horse race journalism and just tell them, ‘Okay, here’s who’s going to win, here’s who’s up, here’s who’s down’? There’s a place for both of those types of journalism, but I think we really need to reevaluate the second horse-race aspect of it a lot more closely, given how bad the calls were this time.”

    The problem is, "this moment in time" ran right up to the exact moment in time that the results were indisputably the opposite of the little white "predictive modelings" you clowns were telling everybody.

    You know what? You folks didn't have any credibility with me before any of this. What you did was make millions of people agree with me on that point. Thank you for that!






      Current date/time is Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:24 pm