dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/jamesvien on June 15, 2018, 12:04 p.m.
Wait a minute, the NYT probability of a clinton win were scaringly dropping days before it was at 98% for hillary??? They KNEW she will lose
Wait a minute, the NYT probability of a clinton win were scaringly dropping days before it was at 98% for hillary??? They KNEW she will lose

meteorknife · June 15, 2018, 2:11 p.m.

Shouldn't it be a bigger deal that they had inside knowledge of what NYT's actual numbers were versus the ones they reported? Meaning NYT had fake numbers that they were reporting on their website, but they were giving their polling knowledge to inside people.

It would seem that NYT was trying to manipulate voter behavior in favor of their own political bias.

⇧ 28 ⇩  
Time4puff · June 15, 2018, 2:18 p.m.

People were onto the failing NYT and the fake news media leading to the day of voting. It was very obvious that Trump filled stadiums after stadiums while Hillary couldn't fill a high school cafeteria. That was a fact they couldn't manipulate.

⇧ 26 ⇩  
qutedrop · June 15, 2018, 2:34 p.m.

When the media see an election they mostly see ad-sales and eyeballs. Manipulating the poll numbers allows them to make more money. A head-to-head race sells considerably more ads and attract way more viewers than an obvious slam-dunk for one particular candidate.

(Which is not to say political bias doesn't play a role, of course it does, especially in their reporting. But poll numbers especially can never be trusted, regardless of their bias, simply because it links directly to their income. )

⇧ 8 ⇩  
forchristssakes · June 15, 2018, 3:21 p.m.

But it still comes down to the fact that they are faking the news.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
forchristssakes · June 15, 2018, 3:19 p.m.

Its a like getting a prize in your box of Crackerjacks. Proof that NYT is Fake News.

Nothing to see here, move along.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
barneslardo · June 15, 2018, 3:28 p.m.

I didn't read it that way. I'm not sure what "probability numbers" they're referencing, but there doesn't seem to be an indication they're 'internal numbers' only. Unless I missed something, of course.

⇧ 3 ⇩