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

[newwurldmn]

He probably meant news.google.com website. Which is a branch of Google corp well known for its search engine business. Are you ok with that?

He didn't say that. He referenced the auto search.

He tells it like it is, but doesn't mean what he says. Are you okay with that?

 

[newwurldmn]

The NYTimes shouldn't feel too bad. It could have been worse. They could have swallowed the garbage polls whole and really gone off the deep end.

Supposively even Trumps campaign pegged their odds at 10%.

 

[gkishot]

He didn't say that. He referenced the auto search.

He tells it like it is, but doesn't mean what he says. Are you okay with that?

I don't know how Google auto-completion works. But apparently auto-completions for Hillary & Trump are not identical and possibly more favorable toward Hillary. Not sure why.

 

[newwurldmn]

I don't know how Google auto-completion works. But apparently auto-completions for Hillary & Trump are not identical and possibly more favorable toward Hillary. Not sure why.

My post on this in this thread:

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"

People weren't searching for "Hillary racist" so autocomplete wouldn't recommend that. Like it wouldn't recommend "Trump racing" or "Hillary racing" because no one was searching for their auto racing stats.

 

[gkishot]

My post on this in this thread:



People weren't searching for "Hillary racist" so autocomplete wouldn't recommend that. Like it wouldn't recommend "Trump racing" or "Hillary racing" because no one was searching for their auto racing stats.

Yes, but I doubt ppl were not searching Hillary criminal which is also not in auto-completion. There are plenty of other examples.

 

[rock34748]

...
We all know that Fox News is fair and balanced and everyone else is biased.

Mostly yes, agreed. Megyn has been a bit "off" lately though.

 

[rock34748]

Joe Scarborough's response to article.

https://twitter.com/x/status/796696626366533632

This is amazing and refreshing...truth.

 

[newwurldmn]

Yes, but I doubt ppl were not searching Hillary criminal which is also not in auto-completion. There are plenty of other examples.

That's his insinuation without proof. They did a study and Hillary had more negative terms than positive. How do you feel about that?

 

[gkishot]

That's his insinuation without proof. They did a study and Hillary had more negative terms than positive. How do you feel about that?

What negative terms? I tried to look up many in my view negative terms for Hillary and they were not there. How do you define what constitutes 'negative term'?

For example here is the simple one: there is completion for 'Trump controversy' but no such thing for 'Hillary controversy'.

 

[newwurldmn]

What negative terms? I tried to look up many in my view negative terms for Hillary and they were not there. How do you define what constitutes 'negative term'?

For example here is the simple one: there is completion for 'Trump controversy' but no such thing for 'Hillary controversy'.

Ask trump. He defined it. Not me.