If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   How craven has political reporting of the "liberal media" become? When NBC's final polls show a big lead for Obama in Ohio, they immediately "unskewed" the results, in the exact same story, to head off right-wing outrage   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 62
    More: Sad, President Obama, NBC News, Ohio, liberal media, Delaware Democratic Party, Marist College, Marist, right-wing  
•       •       •

2370 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2012 at 11:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-05 08:04:58 AM  
Are you kidding? To be thought wrongly as liberal is utterly unacceptable. It's like torture.

Just ask NPR.
 
2012-11-05 08:30:08 AM  
Facts? I think you mean liberal bias.
 
2012-11-05 09:15:11 AM  
Wow, there's some premium derp in the comments of TFA.
 
2012-11-05 09:31:07 AM  

Elegy: Wow, there's some premium derp in the comments of TFA.


The comments under Yahoo articles are what you'd get at Freeperland if everyone's IQ dropped another 100 points.
 
2012-11-05 10:19:15 AM  
So FOX News is "fair and balanced" by decree. And MSNBC is trying to be fair by fudging shiat.

Here's an idea: how about doing some pure reporting on facts?
 
2012-11-05 10:44:36 AM  
so, apparently it's really really easy to inject a sh*tty criticism into the mainstream political narrative. it's so easy that this guy was able to do it in just a few months:

static5.businessinsider.com

so why not us, fark? what ridiculous, completely unsupportable criticism of electoral politics can we inject into the political narrative that network news will be forced to respond to?
 
2012-11-05 10:56:48 AM  

thomps: it's so easy that this guy was able to do it in just a few months:


Can we get a livestream of him watching the results tomorrow night? It's going to be like a cross between Luke Skywalker searching his feelings and "IT'S STILL REAL TO ME!"
 
2012-11-05 11:07:38 AM  

thomps: so, apparently it's really really easy to inject a sh*tty criticism into the mainstream political narrative. it's so easy that this guy was able to do it in just a few months:

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

so why not us, fark? what ridiculous, completely unsupportable criticism of electoral politics can we inject into the political narrative that network news will be forced to respond to?



Human-Mouse hybrid voters are underrepresented in the polls, which clearly favor Christine O'Donnell.
 
2012-11-05 11:09:35 AM  
I love Game of Thrones but good lord, can we drop over using the word craven?
 
2012-11-05 11:11:52 AM  
If Nate Silver proves to be accurate. The reactionary knee jerk from the right wing is going to be so explosive it's going to cause the world to start spinning in the other direction.

There will be foaming at the mouth and threats everywhere.
 
2012-11-05 11:12:16 AM  
FTA: You don't want a three credit lesson right now in survey research, I'm sure.

Oh, snap.
 
2012-11-05 11:12:40 AM  
I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?
 
2012-11-05 11:13:54 AM  

Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?


Thats what they do
 
2012-11-05 11:14:42 AM  

thomps: so, apparently it's really really easy to inject a sh*tty criticism into the mainstream political narrative. it's so easy that this guy was able to do it in just a few months:

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

so why not us, fark? what ridiculous, completely unsupportable criticism of electoral politics can we inject into the political narrative that network news will be forced to respond to?


What I want to know is, once the election happens and Nate Silver and Princeton's numbers are far more accurate than White Shadow's, can we finally jettison this "unskewed" nonsense?

// no, because the media needs to prove - for the 32nd year running - that they're not liberal
// heavens to Betsy, we can't be liberal! we've gotta be fair'n'balanced©!
 
2012-11-05 11:14:49 AM  

Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?


The issue with that is you still have to take into account the fact that you're only asking segments of the population, not the entire population.
 
2012-11-05 11:16:08 AM  
Eh, take enough samples, eventually you'll get one skewed like that. That's why you include a confidence interval and you suck it up if you're wrong, which will happen about as often as you predict with the confidence interval. You aren't supposed to handwave away the results, or data snoop and say "yeah, but what if we'd just sampled these people..."

People seem to forget a 95% interval means you're wrong about 1 out of every 20 times, and they've been doing this a lot lately. There's probably several polls published in the last months that are wrong.
 
2012-11-05 11:16:36 AM  
Before it was big complex facts like climate change that people refuted. Now it's stuff as simple as polling data.

It's also yet another instance of the media trying to portray to valid sides to every story so to appeal to the most possible people.
 
2012-11-05 11:18:27 AM  

Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?


They don't.

That's just the sampling response they got, I think. They go "Who will you vote for?" then "Are you a republican, democrat, or independent?" Then they report both numbers.
 
2012-11-05 11:19:36 AM  
This is the kind of society you get when you live in fear of the stupid people constantly dialing it up to 11. All you do is encourage them to keep dialing it up. You'll never appease these people. Now we have to preemptively cook poll numbers to keep the derp brigade from going nuclear when faced with reality? How about you put your big-boy pants on and deal with it like an adult?
 
2012-11-05 11:19:59 AM  
If I understand this article correctly, which I may not, it seems this isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. From what I gather, there were more democrats sampled than republicans and they're just trying to account for that discrepancy.
 
2012-11-05 11:20:06 AM  

thomps: so, apparently it's really really easy to inject a sh*tty criticism into the mainstream political narrative. it's so easy that this guy was able to do it in just a few months:

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

so why not us, fark? what ridiculous, completely unsupportable criticism of electoral politics can we inject into the political narrative that network news will be forced to respond to?


Lizard people? Hollow earth? Lizard people at the center of the hollow earth?
 
2012-11-05 11:20:43 AM  

Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?


They also ask the polled people which party they identify with. So their sample might contain, for instance, 39% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 31% identifying with neither.

The right wing believes that this can't be true, and any sample that has more Democrats than Republicans is biased.

Meanwhile realists see this as just another data point: an indication that there are simply more Democrats than Republicans.

But the MSM gas to pander to the derp and the herp.
 
2012-11-05 11:20:53 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: This is the kind of society you get when you live in fear of the stupid people constantly dialing it up to 11. All you do is encourage them to keep dialing it up. You'll never appease these people. Now we have to preemptively cook poll numbers to keep the derp brigade from going nuclear when faced with reality? How about you put your big-boy pants on and deal with it like an adult?


But ACCESS!
 
2012-11-05 11:22:20 AM  

Diogenes: So FOX News is "fair and balanced" by decree. And MSNBC is trying to be fair by fudging shiat.

Here's an idea: how about doing some pure reporting on facts?


It's the balanced part that is tripping everyone up currently. The news shouldn't be balanced, it should be fair. Balanced is letting one side say "2 + 2 = 4" and the other "2 + 2 = potato". Fair is saying "the side saying 2 + 2 = 4 has it correct." NPR had one of their executive producers on the other day and he said they were not going to try to be balanced anymore because it wasn't truthful.
 
2012-11-05 11:23:15 AM  

ajt167: If I understand this article correctly, which I may not, it seems this isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. From what I gather, there were more democrats sampled than republicans and they're just trying to account for that discrepancy.


Which is ridiculous, because it's not a discrepancy, it's a data point. One with its own margin of error and everything.
 
2012-11-05 11:24:58 AM  
Suck it, libs

i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-05 11:25:43 AM  

thomps: so, apparently it's really really easy to inject a sh*tty criticism into the mainstream political narrative. it's so easy that this guy was able to do it in just a few months:

[static5.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

so why not us, fark? what ridiculous, completely unsupportable criticism of electoral politics can we inject into the political narrative that network news will be forced to respond to?



Fortunately, fark doesnt take itself seriously enough
 
2012-11-05 11:27:58 AM  
The final and ultimately true numbers will be out tomorrow night (barring some damn 2000 election scenario).
You can't unskew those for the FOX crowd. So why bother catering to their alternate reality at all?
You're just feeding an illness.
 
2012-11-05 11:28:00 AM  
FTFA: "We anticipated that there would be criticism of a D+9 sample, and asked our pollsters to assume -- as an exercise -- what the race would be simply if you halved that Democratic Party ID advantage,"

Then we asked our pollsters to assume -- as an exercise -- what the race would be simply if Mitt Romney could fly? Then, what if Joe Biden could turn himself invisible, and had a robot friend?

Lastly, we asked our pollsters to assume -- as an exercise -- what the race would be simply if we completely ignored the consistent months-long trend line favoring Obama in 90% of the crucial states that add up to 270 votes in the electoral college?

We found that it changed the election results entirely!
 
2012-11-05 11:29:05 AM  
NBC's "unskewed" poll numbers still show Obama still ahead in Ohio.
 
2012-11-05 11:29:12 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Are you kidding? To be thought wrongly as liberal is utterly unacceptable. It's like torture.

Just ask NPR.


Once more in English.
 
2012-11-05 11:29:20 AM  

Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?


That's what they do. The party ID of likely voters is determined empirically, the same way that voting preferences are. If Ohio's pool of likely voters is showing a party ID split of D+9, that's because that's what the pollster found to be the case, not because they somehow decided that number a priori.

Republicans are basically objecting to these empirically determined party ID numbers because they don't "feel right" to them. These pollsters must all be sampling random voters wrongly or something, because the picture of the electorate that emerges doesn't match up to the electorate that Republicans imagine to be true.
 
2012-11-05 11:29:58 AM  
So now we have to talk in whispers, code and pig Latin otherwise we'll upset our boot strappy, personally responsible, Mongoloid-Americans?
 
2012-11-05 11:30:29 AM  
bigbaddie.com

IT'S STILL A HORSERACE TO ME DAMNIT!
 
2012-11-05 11:33:23 AM  

unexplained bacon: The final and ultimately true numbers will be out tomorrow night (barring some damn 2000 election scenario).
You can't unskew those for the FOX crowd. So why bother catering to their alternate reality at all?
You're just feeding an illness.


HA HA HA! Oh wait you're serious?

Well then, hope you're looking forward to the Fark Politics Tab/ Official Derpasphere Conspiracy Troll Page going into 5th gear after the election.
 
2012-11-05 11:33:43 AM  
Before we can fix politics in America, we need to fix its news media.

/probably should use the word "repair"
 
2012-11-05 11:34:09 AM  
The MSM have done this multiple times the last few months when the polls have shown a lead for Romney. The announcement that Romney is in the lead is always followed by a "but...".

Don't be hypocritical, libs.
 
2012-11-05 11:35:30 AM  
One of my far-right coworkers is convinced Romney will win tomorrow, because the Redskins lost yesterday. Apparently, every time the Redskins lose the last game before a Presidential election, the Republican won.

I asked him if he was that certain, why did he bother voting and why did both campaigns spend nearly half a billion dollars on campaign ads?
 
2012-11-05 11:36:49 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?

That's what they do. The party ID of likely voters is determined empirically, the same way that voting preferences are. If Ohio's pool of likely voters is showing a party ID split of D+9, that's because that's what the pollster found to be the case, not because they somehow decided that number a priori.

Republicans are basically objecting to these empirically determined party ID numbers because they don't "feel right" to them. These pollsters must all be sampling random voters wrongly or something, because the picture of the electorate that emerges doesn't match up to the electorate that Republicans imagine to be true.


If the sample is D+12 but we know that Ohio party ID polls have shown registrations at D+4, do we assume that the D+12 sample is accurate even though we know that Ohio is D+4?
 
2012-11-05 11:38:04 AM  

Bendal: One of my far-right coworkers is convinced Romney will win tomorrow, because the Redskins lost yesterday. Apparently, every time the Redskins lose the last game before a Presidential election, the Republican won.

I asked him if he was that certain, why did he bother voting and why did both campaigns spend nearly half a billion dollars on campaign ads?


that half a billion pales in comparison to the amount that each side paid in bribes to ensure that the redskins either one or lost this sunday. unfortunately for obama, no-one can beat the redskins in a race to the bottom.
 
2012-11-05 11:39:41 AM  
I'm surprised real clear politics hasn't written a couple explaining how their own numbers are wrong.
 
2012-11-05 11:41:44 AM  

GAT_00: Facts? I think you mean liberal bias.


Same thing
 
2012-11-05 11:41:59 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Doc Daneeka: Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?

That's what they do. The party ID of likely voters is determined empirically, the same way that voting preferences are. If Ohio's pool of likely voters is showing a party ID split of D+9, that's because that's what the pollster found to be the case, not because they somehow decided that number a priori.

Republicans are basically objecting to these empirically determined party ID numbers because they don't "feel right" to them. These pollsters must all be sampling random voters wrongly or something, because the picture of the electorate that emerges doesn't match up to the electorate that Republicans imagine to be true.

If the sample is D+12 but we know that Ohio party ID polls have shown registrations at D+4, do we assume that the D+12 sample is accurate even though we know that Ohio is D+4?


Party identification is a fluid thing. A person registered as a Republican or Independent may identify themselves to a pollster as Democrat, and vice versa. Just because voter registration may be D+4, doesn't mean that we "know" that Ohio at any given moment is D+4.

Secondly, I wouldn't expect the party ID spread on a group of likely voters to match that of the pool of all registered voters. Two different things.

Lastly, I don't think Ohio voters register by party in any event.
 
2012-11-05 11:42:38 AM  

LazarusLong42: Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?

They also ask the polled people which party they identify with. So their sample might contain, for instance, 39% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 31% identifying with neither.

The right wing believes that this can't be true, and any sample that has more Democrats than Republicans is biased.

Meanwhile realists see this as just another data point: an indication that there are simply more Democrats than Republicans.


Oh, OK. So they're just saying that pollsters should keep asking people until they get the results conservatives have already decided are true.
Now if you can just tell me why I ever expected republicans' views on math or science to every be remotely associated with reality.
 
2012-11-05 11:42:47 AM  
NBC's poll is based on everyone in Cleveland voting for Obama the way they did in the previous election and overwhelming the state. I am not seeing that enthusiasm this time.
 
2012-11-05 11:43:25 AM  

ajt167: If I understand this article correctly, which I may not, it seems this isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. From what I gather, there were more democrats sampled than republicans and they're just trying to account for that discrepancy.


The point is that virtually every poll has been finding some kind of D advantage, which means the polls aren't necessarily skewed. What's skewed is the electorate. In favor of the Democratic Party. And that's just impossible to the "Conservatism cannot fail; it can only be failed" crowd.
 
2012-11-05 11:45:44 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: I'm surprised real clear politics hasn't written a couple explaining how their own numbers are wrong.


Well, they're just aggregating. Now, you can argue with which polls they include and when they drop particular ones out of the average, but the calculation is a straight mean. Gallup is still +5 so if Obama goes on to win as it seems he will, they would be the ones expected to do the most introspection. Well, and Rasmussen but we know that's not gonna happen.
 
2012-11-05 11:46:14 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Karac: I need someone to explain how these polls work to me. Why do they set a sampling rate of + or - anything, for either party?
Can you not get a decent idea of how the populace at large is going to vote by randomly calling a suffiently large number of phones and saying "On Tueday, are you going to vote for Obama, Romney, or none of the above"?

The issue with that is you still have to take into account the fact that you're only asking segments of the population, not the entire population.


OK... so the next time you have a check-up at your Doctor and he tells you to get some blood tests done, make sure they drain all of the blood out of you and test every drop.
 
2012-11-05 11:47:04 AM  

smitty04: NBC's poll is based on everyone in Cleveland voting for Obama the way they did in the previous election and overwhelming the state. I am not seeing that enthusiasm this time.


It's hard to see enthusiasm reflected in the numbers when the Secretary of State is making it nearly impossible for Democratic-leaning constituencies to vote.
 
2012-11-05 11:51:22 AM  

s1ugg0: If Nate Silver proves to be accurate. The reactionary knee jerk from the right wing is going to be so explosive it's going to cause the world to start spinning in the other direction.

There will be foaming at the mouth and threats everywhere.


I know. Won't it be awesome???
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report