Poll: Majority says mainstream media publishes fake news - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Nearly [B]two-thirds[/B] of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]That number includes [I]80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats[/I]. Eighty-four percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news"]http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news[/URL] [url]http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HCAPS_HarrisPoll_May-Wave_Top-Line-Memo_Registered-Voters.pdf[/url] You maybe not going like it, If you are opposite of this poll says.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52275285][URL="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news"]http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news[/URL] You maybe not going like it, If you are opposite.[/QUOTE] Of fucking course, They didn't do any favors by starting to attack youtubers (Including the biggest).

[quote]You maybe not going like it, If you are opposite.[/quote] I'm sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm having trouble reading that sentence. Disappointing to hear that though. I'd like to have known specifically what the questions/options were that they distributed though. They only distributed to the hill and the results of it are private though so unless The Hill offers that data up I can only speculate how well put together that poll was. Edit: [quote](I'm not respond to you Firgof Umbra)[/quote] What? Hahaha. Dude, I just asked for you to rephrase it so I could tell what you meant by what you wrote. I mean, feel free to ignore me but that's not a very readable sentence.

Is this not to be expected though? Both sides generally consider the opposite leaning sources as untrustworthy and fake due to today's narrative. This isn't really surprising to me.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52275285][URL="http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news"]http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][url=https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/]Factual Reporting: MIXED[/url][/QUOTE] I would take this with a grain of salt for the time being.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275389]I would take this with a grain of salt for the time being.[/QUOTE] But they are 'Centre-left to Less bias' according to the website through. [IMG]https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/leftcenter10.png[/IMG] (This is from Media Bias / Fact Check itself)

I think most people agree, that yes, the media is often exaggerated and, more often nowadays, outright false in a lot of cases. However, this doesn't mean things can't be validated, cross-checked, statistically proven, assured of methodology, etc. It has a lot to do with the explosion of internet use, and as a result, a much larger swathe of viable sources and viewpoints being thrown around, oftentimes not credible in the slightest. It's quite hard for people ill equipped to distinguish which information sources are credible, and which ones are not. Many people, especially those older, less educated, and less used to large amounts of information exposure (IE the rural, old, high-school-or-less educated demographics that republicans are composed of) aren't nearly as proficient in distinguishing between fact and fiction in an infotainment world bulging more and more with contradictory viewpoints and radical interpretations of events, all initially presented as equally valid to those without rigorous skepticism and information filtering methods. This has been massively exploited by those with the ability to grapple onto this public opinion power-vacuum. Both by mainstream news, alternative news, and just about everyone else; and it's resulted in both polarization and a trust-gap as the unprepared populace is thrown views and interpretations of reality that would once be considered tabloid trash not even allowed to enter into public consciousness, but that now stands up as real headlines; sometimes for alternet bullcrap, but also sometimes for legitimate news sources. This has even further reduced the standards for news-media for all sides. In my opinion, as the populace who aren't well-equipped to deal with this phenomena either expire or learn how to filter information, and as the next generation of long-time internet users is ushered in, things will get a bit better. Either that, or we'll continue our inevitable polarization trend and become a post-fact world; but I feel as if that isn't fully compatible with human society in general, so we'll see.

It's important not to take one poll in isolation

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52275399]But they are 'Centre-left to Less bias' according to the website through. [IMG]https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/leftcenter10.png[/IMG] (This is from Media Bias / Fact Check itself)[/QUOTE] Can't be farther than center-right or center-left [I]and [/I]it cannot have a mixed factual reporting rating.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275389]I would take this with a grain of salt for the time being.[/QUOTE] The harvard harris poll seems legitimate enough, the methodology and everything seems okay. The headline though, is exaggerated. The question is "there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media," not "The mainstream media publishes (only) fake news," as the headline would seem to suggest.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275389]I would take this with a grain of salt for the time being.[/QUOTE] Wait so the fake news site is lying about news sites being fake? This is too fucking confusing for me.

The question was just "Is there a lot of fake news in the media" so the results aren't terribly surprising; people like to entrench themselves in bubbles, meaning left-leaning people see inconvenient news as fake and likewise on the right. I find that generally mainstream media very rarely posts outright fake news. Even alt media sources like Breitbart, HuffPo, and Salon only rarely fabricate falsehoods, preferring rather to omit key details or to frame the news from a certain perspective.

Also you should note the sample size. [quote]The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20.[/quote] My high school had a larger student body population than that.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52275465]Also you should note the sample size. My high school had a larger population than that.[/QUOTE] 2000 is pretty good for a poll, nothing is wrong with that

[QUOTE=matt000024;52275438]Wait so the fake news site is lying about news sites being fake? This is too fucking confusing for me.[/QUOTE] I mean, it makes sense. Kind of. Well, actually, probably not :v: [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;52275465]Also you should note the sample size. My high school had a larger student body population than that.[/QUOTE] Also it's an onlne survey. They probably didn't randomly select the population themselves and it's an opt-in survey, which is a huge no-no. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52275469]2000 is pretty good for a poll, nothing is wrong with that[/QUOTE] Depends on the population and what questions you're asking and how you're doing it.

[QUOTE=matt000024;52275438]Wait so the fake news site is lying about news sites being fake? This is too fucking confusing for me.[/QUOTE] I think this is either ironic or she doesn't like The Hill as an acceptable source for Facepunch standards.

"The latest survey was conducted online within the United States between April 14-17, 2017 among 2,027 registered voters by The Harris Poll. The results reflect a nationally representative sample. Results were weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, employment, and education where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online. Where marked, the responses to some questions have been split sampled due to the length of the survey. Other questions in the poll have been added for academic research. The Co-Directors of the Harvard-Harris Poll are: Stephen D. Ansolabehere – Professor of Government and Director, Center for American Political Studies, Harvard University" 2000 is actually a pretty baseline sample size, even slightly big, for most pollers. The weighting methods I don't know the exact details of, but the people involved are professors at harvard so I don't expect them to make ill-defined weighting. Poll errors on surveys with weighting accounted for and this sample size aren't usually more than +/- 3-5% points. And even phone surveys suffer from significant bias without weighting, for the most part. [url]http://www.pewresearch.org/2017/05/15/what-low-response-rates-mean-for-telephone-surveys/[/url] (super interesting methodology article for anyone interested) [T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/05/12121812/PM.05.15.2017_rddnonresponse-00-07.png[/T] Point is, as long as online stuff is weighted by people with the necessary weighting schemes, I don't see much wrong with the poll.

[QUOTE=kharkovus;52275489]"The latest survey was conducted online within the United States between April 14-17, 2017 among 2,027 registered voters by The Harris Poll. The results reflect a nationally representative sample. Results were weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, employment, and education where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online. Where marked, the responses to some questions have been split sampled due to the length of the survey. Other questions in the poll have been added for academic research. The Co-Directors of the Harvard-Harris Poll are: Stephen D. Ansolabehere – Professor of Government and Director, Center for American Political Studies, Harvard University" 2000 is actually a pretty baseline sample size, even slightly big, for most pollers. The weighting methods I don't know the exact details of, but the people involved are professors at harvard so I don't expect them to make ill-defined weighting. Poll errors on surveys with weighting accounted for and this sample size aren't usually more than +/- 3-5% points.[/QUOTE] Sounds like they know what they're doing, especially with the weighting. The article makes it seem like it was just some online poll, but this seems accurate.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52275399]But they are 'Centre-left to Less bias' according to the website through. [IMG]https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/leftcenter10.png[/IMG] (This is from Media Bias / Fact Check itself)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1559003"]Our criteria are that a source must have a bias rating no farther than Center Left or Center Right, [B]and that it must have a High rate of factual reporting[/B].[/URL][/QUOTE] :thinking: [QUOTE=matt000024;52275438]Wait so the fake news site is lying about news sites being fake? This is too fucking confusing for me.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the source isn't reliable and the data is apparently provided exclusively to this media source. So whether or not it can be trusted is up to debate. Which considering some of the stuff other people posted, most notably this: [QUOTE=Paramud;52275465]Also you should note the sample size. [QUOTE]The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20.[/QUOTE] My high school had a larger student body population than that.[/QUOTE] (specifically the fact it's an online survey since two thousand people's a decent pool for an accurate survey) makes it seem a bit iffy. [QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52275480]I think this is either ironic or she doesn't like The Hill as an acceptable source for Facepunch standards.[/QUOTE] Not ironic and The Hill is unambiguously not acceptable by Facepunch standards. That combined with the fact this data is exclusive to The Hill means it's not independently verifiable. And since The Hill is unreliable it puts the validity of the survey itself in question.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275520]:thinking: I'm saying that the source isn't reliable and the data is apparently provided exclusively to this media source. So whether or not it can be trusted is up to debate. Which considering some of the stuff other people posted, most notably this: (specifically the fact it's an online survey since two thousand people's a decent pool for an accurate survey) makes it seem a bit iffy. Not ironic and The Hill is unambiguously not acceptable by Facepunch standards. That combined with the fact this data is exclusive to The Hill means it's not independently verifiable. And since The Hill is unreliable it puts the validity of the survey itself in question.[/QUOTE] While I agree the hill is an iffy source, I fail to find anything particularly wrong with the poll itself, which is the source of any possible controversy here. The co-directors are all reliable, well-credentialed academics and the methodology, sample size, and question phrasing seem unbiased.

A lot of people here have started 'trusting' the mainstream media because the politican they dislike has been repeating fake news a bunch. You know, it's totally valid to point out that random bullshit blogs are not a good alternative but that doesn't forgive modern media being unbelievably awful.

[QUOTE=kharkovus;52275530]While I agree the hill is an iffy source, I fail to find anything particularly wrong with the poll itself, which is the source of any possible controversy here. The co-directors are all reliable, well-credentialed academics and the methodology, sample size, and question phrasing seem unbiased.[/QUOTE] You're overlooking a major point of what I said. The part where the data is exclusive to The Hill (and thus not independently verifiable) is the major issue here. Due to that we're forced to trust The Hill which is historically a bad idea since they're not the most reliable media source.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52275540]A lot of people here have started 'trusting' the mainstream media because the politican they dislike has been repeating fake news a bunch. You know, it's totally valid to point out that random bullshit blogs are not a good alternative but that doesn't forgive modern media being unbelievably awful.[/QUOTE] Washington post never lied about a crowd size.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275545]You're overlooking a major point of what I said. The part where the data is exclusive to The Hill (and thus not independently verifiable) is the major issue here. Due to that we're forced to trust The Hill which is historically a bad idea since they're not the most reliable media source.[/QUOTE] I don't think we're forced to trust the hill. We're forced to trust harvard-harris, who have published the top-line poll results independent of The Hill. [url]http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HCAPS_HarrisPoll_May-Wave_Top-Line-Memo_Registered-Voters.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=kharkovus;52275565]I don't think we're forced to trust the hill. We're forced to trust harvard-harris, who have published the top-line poll results independent of The Hill. [url]http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HCAPS_HarrisPoll_May-Wave_Top-Line-Memo_Registered-Voters.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] That's better at least but I'm not sure how you managed to find it. The Hill just links to the Harvard-Harris Poll's front page while stating the data was exclusive to them (which apparently isn't true if you're able to find the data) and the only thing I'm seeing on the site's front page that looks relevant to the article is a link to the article in question. Edit: After looking at the url of your link I see what the issue is. The data [I]is[/I] linked on their site (which still brings up the question of how it's exclusive to The Hill...) but it's not labelled in such a way to make it obvious that it's about the poll in question.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275571]That's better at least but I'm not sure how you managed to find it. The Hill just links to the Harvard-Harris Poll's front page while stating the data was exclusive to them (which apparently isn't true if you're able to find the data) and the only thing I'm seeing on the site's front page that looks relevant to the article is a link to the article in question.[/QUOTE] It's actually on the front-page of [URL="http://harvardharrispoll.com/"]harvard-harris[/URL]; I don't really understand why they stressed that it was only available to the Hill. I think maybe the media has to get an agreement to credit harvard harris before they can do an official news report on that poll? Unsure, to be honest.

I mean ultimately, they do. The most recent thing that comes to mind is the blatant attempt at character assassination of pewdiepie for juicy views, but there's been plenty of things in the past. Fox news presumably counts as mainstream media and I've seen loads of atrocious things broadcasted by them over the years. People being skeptical of big media outlets and not just implicitly trusting everything they said would be amazing if they weren't instead just going to even less trustworthy outlets, but that seems to be what's happening to me

I also find it funny that out of all articles to produce controversy/confusion about polling and trusting sources, it's this one, lol.

[QUOTE=kharkovus;52275593]I also find it funny that out of all articles to produce controversy/confusion about polling and trusting sources, it's this one, lol.[/QUOTE] The reason I even checked The Hill's rating on MBFC to begin with was actually specifically because of their claim that the data was exclusive to them (which is something that should throw up warning flags for anyone unless it's a known reliable source like Reuters) and the fact they linked just to the poll site's front page which didn't seem to have a link to the data due to the way they labelled it.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52275547]Washington post never lied about a crowd size.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure all i've seen you do recently is quote people and make an irrelevant comment that intentionally misses the point of whoever you're quoting. The fact that the idea that we should expect more from our national media and news sources is now heavily politicized doesnt concern you at all? That it's now considered right wing to take issue with the complete lack of per-organization reporting? That's it's fine that they usually just regurgitate each-others news reporting without doing investigation of their own? The extreme oversimplifcation of every issue and dumbing down analysis and punditry to the barest left vs right level to appeal to as wide an audience as possible? This is so much of a non issue to you that your response to a comment about all this is 'but wash po isnt trump'. :hammered: