Nate Silver, media bubble exists, it's real

[WVPATX]

Nate, the darling of the left and a big time data analytic, diagnoses the huge failure of the media during the campaign. He calls it group think. This might be true of the election but on regular news, it is media corruption. They live in that bubble and know exactly what they are doing as they deceive Americans to try to teach them to think like the media does.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...iz-nate-silver-there-really-was-liberal-media

 

[dave]

You can apply the group think issues to the liberal favorite pseudoscience/political dogma.

 

[op2]

Nate, the darling of the left and a big time data analytic, diagnoses the huge failure of the media during the campaign. He calls it group think. This might be true of the election but on regular news, it is media corruption. They live in that bubble and know exactly what they are doing as they deceive Americans to try to teach them to think like the media does.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...iz-nate-silver-there-really-was-liberal-media

Nate is right. The only reason he's a "darling of the left" is because the left liked that he accurately predicted Obama's two wins. But if you predict Obama's win it doesn't mean your prediction is meant to help Obama win, rather it means you're making a prediction about reality.

People that make predictions about reality beforehand have more courage than the 99% of people that spout political nonsense. Predictions can be checked and predictions in writing (or the web) out there for posterity are the best kind of predictions. Nate was right about Obama (twice) and although he was wrong about Trump, he was much less wrong than almost all other media outlets.

The notion that the predictions were pro-Hilary out of an effort to sway the public make no sense because being pro-Hilary when she's not really winning only (a) makes her supporters complacent and thus they may not vote and (b) makes the pro-Hilary predictors look like idiots when their strong pro-Hilary predictions turn out to be false. As that article says, Nate took a lot of grief from pro-Hilary predictors and those people now look like idiots. Nate OTOH looks good.

The moral is that come future elections, don't waste your time on the million different predictors and instead locate the few that have a good TRACK RECORD and just look at them. Assuming, that is, you want to actually know what is likely to happen.

 

[atlkvb]

Nate, the darling of the left and a big time data analytic, diagnoses the huge failure of the media during the campaign. He calls it group think. This might be true of the election but on regular news, it is media corruption. They live in that bubble and know exactly what they are doing as they deceive Americans to try to teach them to think like the media does.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...iz-nate-silver-there-really-was-liberal-media

I don't disagree with his analysis PAX, but the reason I prefer to call them incompetent is precisely because they do know what they are doing yet they persist.

They know they are turning off half of their audience, and they know in most cases they are not telling the full Truth when they shade and slant their narratives to fit their particular agendas.

Let me give you an example from my line of work to make my case:

Suppose I send a vehicle in need of repair to a tech and he knows his repairs won't really fix the customer's car correctly, but will pay him the most money? Yes he's corrupt for taking the customer's money by not doing his job correctly, but he's also incompetent because knows that vehicle was not repaired correctly.

Either way he deserves to be fired. So does the Media who refuses to report facts unbiased and without favoritism for any particular point of view.

 

[WVPATX]

Nate is right. The only reason he's a "darling of the left" is because the left liked that he accurately predicted Obama's two wins. But if you predict Obama's win it doesn't mean your prediction is meant to help Obama win, rather it means you're making a prediction about reality.

People that make predictions about reality beforehand have more courage than the 99% of people that spout political nonsense. Predictions can be checked and predictions in writing (or the web) out there for posterity are the best kind of predictions. Nate was right about Obama (twice) and although he was wrong about Trump, he was much less wrong than almost all other media outlets.

The notion that the predictions were pro-Hilary out of an effort to sway the public make no sense because being pro-Hilary when she's not really winning only (a) makes her supporters complacent and thus they may not vote and (b) makes the pro-Hilary predictors look like idiots when their strong pro-Hilary predictions turn out to be false. As that article says, Nate took a lot of grief from pro-Hilary predictors and those people now look like idiots. Nate OTOH looks good.

The moral is that come future elections, don't waste your time on the million different predictors and instead locate the few that have a good TRACK RECORD and just look at them. Assuming, that is, you want to actually know what is likely to happen.

I could make the counter argument OP that the media in their constant barrage of Hillary as a lock was intended to stunt the turnout for Trump.

But my larger point is that the media does exist in a bubble, as Silver observers.The bubble is the north east corridor from New York City to DC. There is very, very little ideological diversity in that bubble. They are generally speaking very liberal. They simply don't understand the rest of the country, nor do they appear to want to understand the rest of the country. It is why trust in the media is at or near all-time lows.

 

[atlkvb]

There is very, very little ideological diversity in that bubble. They are generally speaking very liberal. They simply don't understand the rest of the country, nor do they appear to want to understand the rest of the country.

This is another excellent example of why I believe they are incompetent Pax. That is simply inexcusable if they profess to be unbiased observers among all they see.

The corruption comes in how they select or chose to report on their observations, their incompetence comes from the fact that they are unwilling to either change or realize their own bias.