breaking news from the washington post

anatta said:
her baggage was her own. stop trying to blame everyone else for her loss-she was obviously a corrupted liar/oligarch/warmonger.
On top of that she ran a pur negative campaign "Trump is unfit" - with no reason given to vote for her other then being a woman.

She was rejected as a piss poor candidate.
room-500x359.jpg
Click to expand...

And he doesn't have baggage? Many Americans were duped into voting for him. Now his true colors are showing. Gonna be a long and tough 4 years for him. Remember, it's been proven more than half of America hates the clown!
 
tsuke said:
what was the quid pro quo for the entire media siding with hillary? :)

Wikileaks was on our side yes. The main difference is that anyone who has ever discussed the emails ,like colin powell for instance, has admitted they were 100% true. Very different from random unnamed sources.
Click to expand...

The entire media didn't side with Hillary just because you claim it did. In fact, the opposite was true, trump got way more coverage. This was analyzed.

1.How did you go about measuring media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
We compiled a total of 21,981 articles written about the election dating back to July 1, 2015. To be included in our data set, each article had to reference either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in its headline (but not both). The articles came from the websites of eight major media outlets: the New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Politico, Fox News and the Weekly Standard. We wanted a mixture liberal and conservative outlets, at least according to conventional wisdom.

2. How do you know whether a story is positive or negative about either of the candidates?
We did this via a computer algorithm, which is becoming increasingly common as social scientists work with huge data sets of text. There are a variety of approaches to what’s often called sentiment analysis, but our methodology was this: for each article, the algorithm identified every adjective. Then, using a very large word bank, it scored the adjectives on a scale of -1.0 (most negative) to +1.0 (most positive). The computer then averaged those values to generate an overall sentiment score for each article.

3. How much coverage have the two candidates received in these outlets, and how has that changed over time?
The first thing that jumped out at us when we started examining our data was the sheer number of headlines in which Donald Trump’s name appeared. Across the eight outlets, we found Trump’s name mentioned in a total of 14,924 article headlines from July 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. Clinton has been mentioned in less than half that amount.
Both candidates’ mentions have increased over the course of the campaign, although the increase in Trump’s mentions occurred earlier and at a faster rate than Clinton’s.

4. And what about the tone of that coverage? Is one candidate getting “worse” coverage than the other?
The short answer is that it varies over time and appears to depend on the most salient events. For example, Donald Trump’s worst weeks may have come in November 2015, around the time he suggested the need for a national database of Muslim citizens and also mocked a disabled New York Times reporter. The tone of Clinton’s media coverage seems to have suffered most when her private email server scandal came to the fore once again in early July 2016.

(Continued)

4_3.png


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.75a52ccaf37d
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Prior to Assange [bless his heart lol] and Wiki, the perception of the media by most conservatives was that at best, they were supine in the face of liberal screw ups; and at worst, they were basically aiding and abetting them. We just couldn't prove anything.

Wiki lent truth to the latter.
Click to expand...
Still the same. But at least now NYTimes has admitted as such. Wapo still worthless
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Yeah, but your own link said Intel's opinion was that the Russians couldn't change ballots or affect the outcome of the election. As far as Wiki goes, if Hillary wasn't a scoundrel and if the media wasn't corrupt, Wiki would have nothing of consequence to reveal.

Put another way, if Hillary would have won in absence of Wiki, she and the democrats would have won by cheating. I'm 100% sure Hillary and many of her supporters would have been ok with that.

I absolutely feel no pain for them. They thoroughly deserved to be Trumped.
Click to expand...

this thread is about a foreign country doing its best to interfere in our presidential election
 
christiefan915 said:
The entire media didn't side with Hillary just because you claim it did. In fact, the opposite was true, trump got way more coverage. This was analyzed.

1.How did you go about measuring media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
We compiled a total of 21,981 articles written about the election dating back to July 1, 2015. To be included in our data set, each article had to reference either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in its headline (but not both). The articles came from the websites of eight major media outlets: the New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Politico, Fox News and the Weekly Standard. We wanted a mixture liberal and conservative outlets, at least according to conventional wisdom.

2. How do you know whether a story is positive or negative about either of the candidates?
We did this via a computer algorithm, which is becoming increasingly common as social scientists work with huge data sets of text. There are a variety of approaches to what’s often called sentiment analysis, but our methodology was this: for each article, the algorithm identified every adjective. Then, using a very large word bank, it scored the adjectives on a scale of -1.0 (most negative) to +1.0 (most positive). The computer then averaged those values to generate an overall sentiment score for each article.

3. How much coverage have the two candidates received in these outlets, and how has that changed over time?
The first thing that jumped out at us when we started examining our data was the sheer number of headlines in which Donald Trump’s name appeared. Across the eight outlets, we found Trump’s name mentioned in a total of 14,924 article headlines from July 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. Clinton has been mentioned in less than half that amount.
Both candidates’ mentions have increased over the course of the campaign, although the increase in Trump’s mentions occurred earlier and at a faster rate than Clinton’s.

4. And what about the tone of that coverage? Is one candidate getting “worse” coverage than the other?
The short answer is that it varies over time and appears to depend on the most salient events. For example, Donald Trump’s worst weeks may have come in November 2015, around the time he suggested the need for a national database of Muslim citizens and also mocked a disabled New York Times reporter. The tone of Clinton’s media coverage seems to have suffered most when her private email server scandal came to the fore once again in early July 2016.

(Continued)

4_3.png


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.75a52ccaf37d
Click to expand...

lol. Even when they try and spin it wapo has to admit that their worst coverage of clinton was months back when it didnt matter much and their worst coverage of trump was right before the election, when early voting was going on to be precise.

It also seems that the New York Times says there is no consensus amongst the intelligence community and that these reports are based on the fact that the RNC was hacked as well which the RNC denies. In fact Sean Spicer says the RNC offered to show journalists and the intelligence community their servers and any relevant issue but were denied.

The solution seems to be simple. The CIA went on the record before and said that yes the DNC servers were hacked by russians I believe. There is no reason they cannot go on the record now.
 
tsuke said:
what was the quid pro quo for the entire media siding with hillary? :)

Wikileaks was on our side yes. The main difference is that anyone who has ever discussed the emails ,like colin powell for instance, has admitted they were 100% true. Very different from random unnamed sources.
Click to expand...

this thread is about russia interfering in our election
 
Don Quixote said:
this thread is still about a foreign country that did its best to interfere in our presidential election.
Click to expand...
Yes well, it would be nice if some of these unnamed sources put their heads above the parapet. Also WaPo and the NYT were both outed as incredibly partisan in their coverage of the election.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
christiefan915 said:
The entire media didn't side with Hillary just because you claim it did. In fact, the opposite was true, trump got way more coverage. This was analyzed.

1.How did you go about measuring media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
We compiled a total of 21,981 articles written about the election dating back to July 1, 2015. To be included in our data set, each article had to reference either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in its headline (but not both). The articles came from the websites of eight major media outlets: the New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Politico, Fox News and the Weekly Standard. We wanted a mixture liberal and conservative outlets, at least according to conventional wisdom.

2. How do you know whether a story is positive or negative about either of the candidates?
We did this via a computer algorithm, which is becoming increasingly common as social scientists work with huge data sets of text. There are a variety of approaches to what’s often called sentiment analysis, but our methodology was this: for each article, the algorithm identified every adjective. Then, using a very large word bank, it scored the adjectives on a scale of -1.0 (most negative) to +1.0 (most positive). The computer then averaged those values to generate an overall sentiment score for each article.

3. How much coverage have the two candidates received in these outlets, and how has that changed over time?
The first thing that jumped out at us when we started examining our data was the sheer number of headlines in which Donald Trump’s name appeared. Across the eight outlets, we found Trump’s name mentioned in a total of 14,924 article headlines from July 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. Clinton has been mentioned in less than half that amount.
Both candidates’ mentions have increased over the course of the campaign, although the increase in Trump’s mentions occurred earlier and at a faster rate than Clinton’s.

4. And what about the tone of that coverage? Is one candidate getting “worse” coverage than the other?
The short answer is that it varies over time and appears to depend on the most salient events. For example, Donald Trump’s worst weeks may have come in November 2015, around the time he suggested the need for a national database of Muslim citizens and also mocked a disabled New York Times reporter. The tone of Clinton’s media coverage seems to have suffered most when her private email server scandal came to the fore once again in early July 2016.

(Continued)


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.75a52ccaf37d
Click to expand...

More coverage is an irrelevant issue.....he was out there and available to anyone that wanted to interview him, usually says bombastic things, being accused of
everything but the JFK assassination, and making news....thus the coverage....and by the same analyzers, the greater percentage of the coverage was negative.

She made the headlines, not by being available but by the exposing of her lies....
 
Milagro said:
Yes well, it would be nice if some of these unnamed sources put their heads above the parapet. Also WaPo and the NYT were both outed as incredibly partisan in their coverage of the election.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

by whom?

does that make any difference as to the veracity of their articles?

both organizations are u s of a organizations and not foreign organizations trying to stealthily influence our election.
 
Rana said:
Putin feared her. Trump is his puppet.
Click to expand...

Given that the narrative in the GOP had been to denounce Nixon and détente, and to celebrate Reagan's aggressive approach to Russia, it will be interesting to see how it's rhetoric is formed around Trump-Putin relations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top