Harris widens lead over Trump with boost from women, Hispanics, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Open link in next tab
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-widens-lead-over-trump-with-boost-women-hispanics-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-08-29/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-widens-lead-over-trump-with-boost-women-hispanics-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-08-29/
::: spoiler Reuters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Reuters:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
:::
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-widens-lead-over-trump-with-boost-women-hispanics-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-08-29/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Can someone tell me what’s wrong with this info and why this bot gets downvoted to hell
It pushes the bot to the bottom of the page, under upvoted comments. The top of the comments should be actual conversation.
Also, they label a lot of sensationalist news sites that attack Dems on everything and under-report every Rep controversy as "center-left".
Ah I didn’t think about pushing it to the bottom. One feature I’ve always hated about Reddit is the mandatory auto mod sticky at the top of the comments on every post so I get it. I wish we could find a better solution though.
I was just thinking about this as well. The great majority of posters on Lemmy seem to use articles from large, reputable news outlets, so I never got the need for the bot, but I don't understand the outrage at it when one could just block it.
The closest to a legit argument against it I've seen basically was who makes sure the anti-bias people don't have bias, but again, I don't see people posting things from LindellTV or whatever. I've been seeing a rise in people hating on just about every news source though, including things like NYT. I'm starting to wonder what those people consider legit sources. No source is going to be perfect, but when I see these same people recommend places, the names are getting pretty far Leftist. I don't see that as a problem in itself, as my leanings are decently left of the US Dem party most of the time, but if they're recommending those sources as unbiased news, that seems false to me. It comes off the same as the righties saying Fox isn't real news because it isn't right enough.
Perhaps it's just we're not used to seeing opinions from those getting to the very far left. I tend to ignore a lot of this type of drama, but with the growing attacks on news sources, and on mods for moderating, it's starting to concern me as someone with interest in this platform and its future. I don't want this place to become a place for extreme bias of either side. I welcome any opinion that's going to express themselves respectfully, but I don't want extremism or prejudice from either side.
You seem like a reasonable and nice enough person and I agree with everything you wrote in the thread below. I did however find it sad that there are a lot of users on Lemmy who would read this part:
the names are getting pretty far Leftist. I don't see that as a problem in itself, as my leanings are decently left of the US Dem party most of the time
And then immediately dismiss you as a "sHiTlIb". It's like you cannot possibly ever be left wing enough for some of these users. It gets exhausting for me honestly. Yeah dude we get it you read Marx and often wear a fedora.
When people are at either end of the political spectrum, that leaves the vast majority of everything else falling into their version of "enlightened centrism."
In the specific post I was alluding to, one of the suggested news sources was Unicorn Riot, which I'm somewhat familiar with. I agree with many positions they back, and I believe what they report is very important to document. But when you're reading an article, and if the story is about the event the author is an active participant in, how is there any argument that the given article is not totally biased?
Now, that is far from saying that article is useless! Quite the opposite, in fact. A first hand account from someone prepared to observe important details of chaotic events as they unfold is extremely valuable information. But they are there, equally, if not moreso, as a participant in said event than as an impartial observer. In that regard, I would never recommend UR as a primary source on an event. If you told me you read a story from Reuters or NYT but said you wished there were something you could read to fill in some gaps or to get some insight into the protest of reasons behind it that you felt that article was lacking, then by all means read something like a Unicorn Riot article!
Activism is important and necessary to improve our world, and I often appreciate the role they play. But activists, by definition, are pushing an agenda, since their entire purpose is to change the status quo. Journalism is collecting accurate info and passing that to the public in a way it can make sense of it. I don't think there should be much overlap in those 2 things.
Unbiased news should be dry and boring, as it isn't getting any "flavor" by its author. So perhaps if you're getting pumped up positively or negatively by what you are reading, step back for a second and evaluate what it is you're reading and trying to see if someone is trying to work on your emotions, and if that is a thing you want.
I won't please everyone with my opinions of course. I do try to make sure I can back up my takes with evidence though, or I try to keep my mouth shut otherwise, at least publicly. 😁
This is a fantastic take. Bravo!
Nothing more really to add other than I wish more people could be like you and see past the more simplistic views of the world.
It's taken a long time and a lot of reading and thinking critically to get to this point. Many people probably don't have the time or energy to devote to it, which is why I try to educate in a way that doesn't try to make people feel dumb for not knowing. I do my best to filter down to the core message and put it in relatable context without trying to add any influence where possible. It can't be intimidating to try to form an opinion on complex matters, but you can still form valid opinions if someone can help get you started with sound fundamentals.
My personal example is I tried to teach myself music by myself for many years. I picked up bits and pieces and could do a few things passably, but I hit roadblocks very quickly. Now that I have been able to get a teacher, who has the prior experience and knowledge, she's able to show me the most efficient order to learn skill in, and how to build upon the knowledge and skills I have and to see areas I'm lacking. I'm still developing my own music taste and style and not hers because she takes me feedback and listens to my interests and my own takeaways from what she shows me. She's been a great help to me without having her force me to what she knows or likes. That's the kind of thing I want to give to people that look to me for information.
I'm glad I got to share something of value with you!
Well I think you’ve actually accurately communicated the need for such a bot. A lot of the sources here are sometimes far left sources that even I don’t trust or they can be just a Wordpress blog. Sometimes that’s fine but I really appreciate the bot being there to highlight it.
And I tend to know the sources pretty well. I know how the Washington post works for example, I know what NPRs articles are bent towards. But I know a lot of people don’t know that and that’s why I’m confused about the hate for the bot because in my eyes it’s only helpful and the sites it links to are decent sources of analysis on them.
I’m with you though, I have yet to see someone post as bad of a source as the NYpost or something but still, the bot is at worst useless and not harmful imo
Perhaps it makes people uncomfortable when their own biases are questioned. Most of us here will gladly go on all day about right wing bias while denying any from the left. I would rather be told if my viewpoint seems off as long as it's in a constructive way. There's a lot I don't know or understand, and having others correct us is how we learn, and that should be done with good intent.
NPR is always a fun one to see how people react to it. The hard left and right both seem to hate on it and swear it leans the opposite of them. If anything, I feel they're too soft on extremism, mainly to the right, but it's curious to see how people can see opposite extremes in whatever they want.
If there's something that I'm really interested in, I'll try to read things for 2 or 3 relatively neutral sources to try to see if I'm getting an accurate view on it. It really doesn't need to be too complex to vet info. NPR, AP, and BBC are my top go tos.
Totally agree but I’d add Reuters into your mix. From everything I’ve read, they’re highly factual and so bias almost doesn’t even apply to them. Most people mark them as dead center.
I do like Reuters as well. I used to use them and AP first, since they're the source for most news anyway, so I try to go to the source. The content though seemed so similar to AP though, and I prefer the more linear vertical style of the AP Top News page to either the AP home page or the Reuters page with their stacked left to right style. I just looked and mobile seems to fix this, but I do most of my news reading on my work laptop so I get the standard website. Perhaps I'm due to swap in some Reuters again.
From everything I’ve read, they’re highly factual and so bias almost doesn’t even apply to them.
While I mostly agree, it should be noted that “bias” can be communicated in a number of ways that a bot can’t detect. “What doesn’t get reported”, for example. Also, “center” is both subjective and relative - I find Reuters does little to highlight moneyed corruption, for example, but they seem fully competent to report on an earthquake or something like that.
I would give them a lot of weight in general, but still pretty far from “accurately representing a complete picture” for the above reasons. They’re just a lot more reasonable about the bias they do communicate.
Some peeps don't like its accuracy, i suppose? They don't agree with its rating and since they can't do anything about it, they leave a cute little downvote? That's my guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s weird to me here though because I do view Reuters as a good source and it’s generally rated high factuality and minimal bias. I’ve seen elsewhere that the bot is off the mark but the ground news links are actually helpful
There is no "lead" because there is no election going on. Polls are proven to be worthless. Can we stop all the useless poll posting? At the best its pointless at the worst its harmful.
Polls aren’t proven to be worthless, they just have error bars that people don’t pay attention to. They’re nothing crazy, just statistics. Problem is: most people do not understand statistics.
The other important thing to consider: polls are a snapshot in time.
They are not a predictor. The only poll that matters is election day.
No, he's got a point. Saying Candidate X is in the "lead" over candidate Y right now is like saying some athlete is in the "lead" of an Olympics event... in May when the games haven't even started yet.
That's still important if the actual race began now and the finish-line was November 5th. What I mean is that if you're 5 kilometers back when you were even at the same point last time in the race, then no matter what it's generally going to be harder to make up that ground by the end of the race. Something has to change where voters are now versus November no differently than making up the difference between runners in a Marathon.
And this data can (a) be useful to change strategy (e.g., Biden stepping down; Harris stepping up or less drastic: altering campaign messaging), and (b) positive momentum tends to excite the base. People like to see positive results. The beauty is that the Harris campaign is still framing themselves as the underdogs — which they are, but it also helps offset any risk to complacency with overconfident voters. Understanding Polls:
Most of that after the first paragraph is valid, but it can only mean a candidate "is favored" or something like that (in the same sense, to continue the analogy, that an athlete who won a bunch of previous events in the lead-up to the Olympics "is favored" at the start of the Olympic event itself). It can't be "in the lead," because the actual race event doesn't begin until the polls open.
The point is, being the favorite doesn't actually mean you've made progress towards winning. It is not like being 5 km ahead in a marathon! It is still extremely possible for the favorite to choke at the event itself and lose badly, and all the prior favorability in the world is completely moot and confers no actual advantage at all.
No, modern polling is mostly useless. The respondents skew heavily in one direction (old people that answer the phone).
There is no sample size big enough to account for a complete cultural shift away from answering phone calls and text messages from people you don't know.
Most polls report a response rate of about 90%, as reported by a PEW analysis of available studies. However, that is a made up number which does not account for attrition (quitters) or non-response to panel recruitment (no answers). If you include those numbers the real response rate is about 3%. Which means between the initial contact and giving their opinion 97% of people asked don't participate in a given poll.
This comment comes off as if you think the people working at Pew, one of the most respected orgs for surveys out there, are just plain stupid and are dumb enough to leave a giant hole in their data when concerning young people. What you’re pointing out is a challenge in modern surveys but this is stuff that Pew is actively working to correct and with the midterm polling, they were far more accurate.
That’s all due to incorrect weighting of the data but Pew notes that polls specifically like the ones referenced here when looking at national sentiment tend to be much more accurate.
If you’d like to read more about the problems with polling Pew has a whole write up on it
Thank you for posting that. It was well-written, and did a great job clarifying both why previous polls were inaccurate, and why they're likely better now. I was particularly interested to read that the margin of error may be about double what is reported.
You should make this a top level post in this group. It is worth discussing on its own.
This is a great article to discuss, and I think it’d make a fine post all by itself.
However, “Restoring people’s confidence in polling is an important goal” is at the top of the article for a reason.
We can expect that the answer “polling is not useful” will not be explored. Limitations to polling concepts will be minimized. The article has stated one of its goals, if not its main goal.
There's a margin of error. They are not worthless. They can also work to create enthusiasm and optimism around a candidate, which, in turn, can prompt people to go vote or to volunteer. Some say it prompts people to say "then I don't have to go vote." I don't believe that.
I do believe that polling showing Hillary with a huge lead helped Trump, but I also don't believe that would happen again because he's a known quantity now.
Of course not. Just like you can't prove polls don't ever have a negative impact. But how else do you explain most polls putting Clinton in a healthy lead and then voter turnout being much lower than it should have in an election where Donald fucking Trump was an option? If people weren't comfortable with the lead seen in polls I really think the voter turnout would've been record setting.
edit: admits to not having proof but lays out logic ==> downvoted to hell. Fucking internet people...
Clinton won the popular vote by the amount that polls predicted. She lost the EC due to razor thin margins in some battleground states, which were well within the margin of error of polls in those states.
Everyone thinks 2016 was a miss for polls, it was not. It was a miss for forecasting models that had Clinton at 90%+ chances of winning while her numbers in many battleground states were really tossups.
There were definitely polls that tried to account for the EC, yet nearly everyone was still flat-footed when Trump won. I don't see how the attitude should be "people interpreted the polls wrong!" if basically everyone did so.
We don't tell users they have to type perfectly formed commands in order to open a webpage, and then if they don't, format their hard drives. We build systems that try to assume users will not understand the underlying concepts and yet we still accommodate them. I see no reason that polls shouldn't be designed with the same ethos. Until they are, I will assume anything a poll tells me is quite likely to be misleading.
And yes I understand statistics enough to know that polls were never meant to tell me exactly what the results will be, so please don't lecture me on that...
Agree completely.
The only exception is if someone wants to deep-dive into a poll to explore methodology and account for it in the analysis. Almost none of the articles we see posted do that though - they tend to state the (real or imagined) results and go outward from there.
Several reasons. Some people weren't as plugged in to the media zeitgeist of 2016 as they are now, some are (shudder) mathematicians, and some just don't see the problem with polls.
And, sadly, some are social scientists who are on board with quantitative survey results. Hey - it happens.
I mean, yeah, but even statisticians should understand that rando internet people would feel the way that the original commenter does. It makes perfect sense.