<story><title>How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders</title><url>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>libertymcateer</author><text>&amp;gt; With last night&amp;#x27;s victories for Clinton and Trump, the real question people should be asking themselves is what these two candidates have in common that have kept them winning, despite their having the two worst favorability ratings in the election?&lt;p&gt;Specious assumption. My conclusion is that the favorability ratings are bullshit.&lt;p&gt;To posit that a huge media conspiracy has caused millions of voters to vote huge, huge landslides in favor of these two people is just ridiculous compared with the probability that measuring very complex and ineffable metrics like &amp;quot;favorability&amp;quot; is a total crapshoot, especially in a world where voters like myself (and many HNers, I suspect) do not have landlines, use ad-blockers, do not click on advertising online and do not fill out surveys.&lt;p&gt;Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science.</text></item><item><author>unclesaamm</author><text>With last night&amp;#x27;s victories for Clinton and Trump, the real question people should be asking themselves is what these two candidates have in common that have kept them winning, despite their having the two worst favorability ratings in the election?&lt;p&gt;To me, media is an obvious one. Turner Broadcasting is a major corporate donor to Clinton, and the NYT is all but falling over themselves to build connections with a Clinton administration.&lt;p&gt;Another similarity is neither Clinton or Trump care that much about consistency, which makes them much shinier objects to cover. See this article for a rare example of the NYT even being unable to notice Hillary&amp;#x27;s flip flopping: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mobile.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;13&amp;#x2F;opinion&amp;#x2F;campaign-stops&amp;#x2F;which-side-are-you-on-hillary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mobile.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;13&amp;#x2F;opinion&amp;#x2F;campaign-stops&amp;#x2F;...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DSingularity</author><text>&amp;gt; Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science.&lt;p&gt;Overwhelmingly improbable? Oh man! What is that likelihood?&lt;p&gt;Please dont masquerade your opinions as facts by using terms like &amp;quot;likelihood&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;improbable&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;I have one question for you. If media influence over elections is so &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and so insignificant why would the NYT have tripped over itself to retitle and reword their article to make it seem like pro-Bernie?&lt;p&gt;Media influence is real. You will quickly notice after speaking to people outside your bubble that the average voters political almost always conform to that of the &amp;quot;pundits&amp;quot;.</text></comment>
<story><title>How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders</title><url>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>libertymcateer</author><text>&amp;gt; With last night&amp;#x27;s victories for Clinton and Trump, the real question people should be asking themselves is what these two candidates have in common that have kept them winning, despite their having the two worst favorability ratings in the election?&lt;p&gt;Specious assumption. My conclusion is that the favorability ratings are bullshit.&lt;p&gt;To posit that a huge media conspiracy has caused millions of voters to vote huge, huge landslides in favor of these two people is just ridiculous compared with the probability that measuring very complex and ineffable metrics like &amp;quot;favorability&amp;quot; is a total crapshoot, especially in a world where voters like myself (and many HNers, I suspect) do not have landlines, use ad-blockers, do not click on advertising online and do not fill out surveys.&lt;p&gt;Tl;dr the likelihood of media influence controlling this election to such huge, huge landslide outcomes is overwhelmingly improbable compared to the high likelihood that favorability metrics are junk-science.</text></item><item><author>unclesaamm</author><text>With last night&amp;#x27;s victories for Clinton and Trump, the real question people should be asking themselves is what these two candidates have in common that have kept them winning, despite their having the two worst favorability ratings in the election?&lt;p&gt;To me, media is an obvious one. Turner Broadcasting is a major corporate donor to Clinton, and the NYT is all but falling over themselves to build connections with a Clinton administration.&lt;p&gt;Another similarity is neither Clinton or Trump care that much about consistency, which makes them much shinier objects to cover. See this article for a rare example of the NYT even being unable to notice Hillary&amp;#x27;s flip flopping: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mobile.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;13&amp;#x2F;opinion&amp;#x2F;campaign-stops&amp;#x2F;which-side-are-you-on-hillary.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mobile.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;13&amp;#x2F;opinion&amp;#x2F;campaign-stops&amp;#x2F;...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>roderickm</author><text>Bias need not be coordinated or conspiratorial to exist in media. Trump and Clinton each have more than twice the earned (free) media coverage than their nearest competitors. The amount each campaign spends on bought media is a small fraction of what is bestowed by news editors and producers.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mediamatters.org&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;ny-times-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media&amp;#x2F;209262&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mediamatters.org&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;15&amp;#x2F;ny-times-trumps-mamm...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>