"New York Times public editor: Why we were wrong" (on election)

Well, the other side have perceived negatively and with frustration him raising the issues and asking the establishment inconvenient questions. Is there anything wrong with that?

No. HE complained that google only showed negative stories about him as he was claiming media bias. Google did a study and found that their algos picked up stuff he said and others reacted to. There wasn't a bias. Google found that it showed more negative articles about Hillary than positive.

so by the transitive property, trump called his own comments negative.
 
No. HE complained that google only showed negative stories about him as he was claiming media bias. Google did a study and found that their algos picked up stuff he said and others reacted to. There wasn't a bias. Google found that it showed more negative articles about Hillary than positive.

so by the transitive property, trump called his own comments negative.
Yes, the stories on Trump by the media were negative. Are you ok with that?
 
The NYT black box called it pretty early for Trump. I remember Brit Hume touting pretty early in the night.

which reminds me that Brit hume practically ripped meygn kelly a new one when she dismissed his comments about the betting markets, the financial markets and 538 model all pointing to a trump win.



The odd thing about the NYT is that their realtime forecasting tool was uncannily accurate but the entire editorial department decided to ignore it. Pure hubris right there.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the stories on Trump by the media were negative. Are you ok with that?

Different argument. He claimed google was biased. And google showed that people were searching for negative articles on trump, presumably because he said negative things. Trump says "I hate Mexicans" and people search "trump racist." So the next time someone searches "trump rac" it autocompletes "racist." When they would do the same for Hillary it wouldn't autocomplete "racist."

If he talked about helping orphans then "Trump orp" probably would have autocompleted "orphans"
 
Different argument. He claimed google was biased. And google showed that people were searching for negative articles on trump, presumably because he said negative things. Trump says "I hate Mexicans" and people search "trump racist." So the next time someone searches "trump rac" it autocompletes "racist." When they would do the same for Hillary it wouldn't autocomplete "racist."

If he talked about helping orphans then "Trump orp" probably would have autocompleted "orphans"
Yes.. exactly right.. I should have found the article/video when I mentioned it just to make it clear what was going on.
 
Different argument. He claimed google was biased. And google showed that people were searching for negative articles on trump, presumably because he said negative things. Trump says "I hate Mexicans" and people search "trump racist." So the next time someone searches "trump rac" it autocompletes "racist." When they would do the same for Hillary it wouldn't autocomplete "racist."

If he talked about helping orphans then "Trump orp" probably would have autocompleted "orphans"
Trump never said 'I hate Mexicans'. This is part of the media negative campaign based on lies & distortion. Liberal media said 'We hate Trump and his basket of deplorables'. The media aligned with the govt ran very negative campaign against Mr Trump & his supporters. Any problem with that?
 
Trump never said 'I hate Mexicans'. This is part of the media negative campaign based on lies & distortion. Liberal media said 'We hate Trump and his basket of deplorables'. The media aligned with the govt ran very negative campaign against Mr Trump & his supporters. Any problem with that?

I made a hypothetical example which means that I was trying to explain the situation with a scenario which may or may not have been real. Any problem with that?
 
I made a hypothetical example which means that I was trying to explain the situation with a scenario which may or may not have been real. Any problem with that?
I am trying to show you a negative reaction by the liberal media and the establishment to Mr Trump as the challenger of the status quo. Do you have any issues with their negative attitude?
 
I am trying to show you a negative reaction by the liberal media and the establishment to Mr Trump as the challenger of the status quo. Do you have any issues with their negative attitude?

I am trying to show that the specific instance of Google showing a bias was false.

We all know that Fox News is fair and balanced and everyone else is biased.
 
You can't compare the two. Trading is not about being right but about understanding what he market thinks is right at any given point in time.

Politics is or at least should all be about doing the right thing. Usually when educated, wise , mature people vote and express themselves politically they try to do the right thing. Problem here is that a much larger amount of people who are less educated, less informed, more gullible voted with their stomach and not with their brain. That is what shocked the educated and more intelligent people. There is a reason why many cities voted blue but rural areas voted red. And its certainly not because Little Rock, Arkansas or Rush Belt Central in Pennsylvania had to fear immigrants or terrorists but because the electorate has a different educational and information level. That it was so different is what shocked the rest of the people.

"The cities" are full of dumb people that didn't even finish high school. Do some research.
 
Back
Top