[saynsedit]

It seems kind of predictable that "real news" sites would run stories on how "fake news" is an epidemic.

Maybe this is too much speculation but it seems like deflecting. Fake news sites weren't responsible for "real news'" complete failure to predict a Trump victory. I've seen little reporting on the attitudes of real Trump supporters. It's mostly reporting of noisy flawed polls and simplistic opinion pieces on why Trump is bad/hitler/stupid and dismissals of his supporters as racists.

IMO I don't think fake news is the problem either (though it is a problem, just not a proportionately large one). It has shades of demonizing independent news sources. Personally I can't stand any cable news source, I prefer to watch "Democracy Now!" I prefer The Intercept, Truthdig, and Jacobin to the NYT or WaPo. They don't peddle fake news whatsoever.

Edit: fake news was not responsible for this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZVgktWQAAXu8g?format=jpg&name=...

[matt4077]

In regards to the predictions, it's important to understand that their role in it was the same as it is with the weather forecast: they're just reporting what people come up with.

Those people, the pollsters and aggregators, were indeed wrong with regards to the winner. It's however important to note that the polls were less than 3% off. It just happened to make quite a difference in the winner-take-all system.

538 was arguably more right than others: their model sensed the uncertainty and gave Trump a 30% chance of winning.

Compared to the NYT/WaPo/WSJ, the self-styled outsiders like The Intercept are incredibly biased, or just bad. It's sometimes hard to see how information flows, but barely any actual news starts at The Incept/Breitbart/HuffPost/etc.

[code_duck]

They could have said it was a 95% chance, or that it was a 10% chance of Trump winning and been just as 'right'. The only thing that could be 'wrong' in predicting a probability like that is if they say there is no chance of something, and it happens.

[crdoconnor]

>It's however important to note that the polls were less than 3% off

Wisconsin last poll 41% for trump, Wisconsin result 49% (~8% off)

Michigan last poll 42% for trump, Michigan result 48% (~6% off)

North Carolina last poll 45% for trump, North carolina result 51% (~6% off)

Florida last poll 45% for trump, Florida result 49% (~4% off)

Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Nov09.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Nov08.html

You can't excuse the pollsters. That's an epic fuck up.

[bubbleRefuge]

Don't forget HuffPo's models giving HRC an 90% chance a few days before.

[saynsedit]

What is The Intercept's bias?

[randomgyatwork]

It is deflecting, they were so wrong about the election, so rather than take responsibility they have to blame someone else.

[tankenmate]

Well I would say that the numbers strongly suggest that the Democrats lost the election rather than the Republican winning it. Votes for both parties were substantially down compared to 2012; it's just that the Democrats failed in their turnout and lost ground to the Republicans, especially in "battleground" states.[0]

[0] http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout...

[EDIT] fixed grammar typo

[tzs]

> I've seen little reporting on the attitudes of real Trump supporters. It's mostly reporting of noisy flawed polls and simplistic opinion pieces on why Trump is bad/hitler/stupid and dismissals of his supporters as racists.

I've heard quite a bit on NPR where they have gone to some of the swing states that went for Trump and interviewed assorted Trump voters.

[basch]

if the "real news" spent half the time they spent explaining why not to vote for the other candidate, explaining the virtues of their candidate ....

edit: should have clicked your picture before commenting