Source bashing soap box

[temporal1]

i very much dislike disgusting ads, typically, i try not to share reports that have those, or, i may try to copy+paste the report without the ads! youtube videos can be problematic, even those with sacred messages or music. similar with requests for political fund raising, or petitions to be signed.

but, i don't entirely dismiss all reports with these types of ads.

'cause, the mainstream controls and edits so much .. i.e., outward appearances, whether appearance of respectability or lack thereof, can be equally misleading! they are appearances.

[Josh]

Ultimately we need sources run by people we can trust. I like Mennonite World Review since the editor is accessible, tries to be fair and balanced, and letters to the editor are published. I rarely see articles there with blatant falsehoods. They do their own reporting instead of just just copying and pasting other news outlets.

They keep asking for more conservative and plain authors to submit articles and blogs, too - so far it seems no one is interested. Instead of making things better, we would rather sit around and complain about the evil, biased media and then email each other clickbait headlines written in Macedonia to make people money.

[temporal1]

i never heard of fivethirtyeight before this page was posted (the day before the 2016 elections)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... cast/#plus

those 48 hours tells-a-tale about sources and polls.

[Bootstrap]

i never heard of fivethirtyeight before this page was posted (the day before the 2016 elections)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... cast/#plus

those 48 hours tells-a-tale about sources and polls.

If a weather report gives a 28% chance of rain, and it rains, that doesn't mean it's a bad weather report. You can't always predict the future. If you say there is a 28% chance of rain, it should rain 1/4 of the times you make that prediction. If it never rains when you say there is a 28% chance of rain, you aren't forecasting accurately.

fivethirtyeight.com clearly said that Trump could win, if you read their articles, and gave some of the scenarios under which that might happen.

That's pretty different from the many sites who thought it was not possible and gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning.

And one of the reasons for this is that fvethirtyeight is just as skeptical about polls as you are. They analyze polls based on past performance, and take uncertainty into account.

[MaxPC]

i never heard of fivethirtyeight before this page was posted (the day before the 2016 elections)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... cast/#plus

those 48 hours tells-a-tale about sources and polls.

Absolutely!

[temporal1]

i never heard of fivethirtyeight before this page was posted (the day before the 2016 elections)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... cast/#plus

those 48 hours tells-a-tale about sources and polls.

Absolutely!

while you were hunting, PeterG posted:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=47&start=10

The really great/depressing thing is that this appeared without any sense of irony that I could detect.

[MaxPC]

The really great/depressing thing is that this appeared without any sense of irony that I could detect.

Mark Twain popularized the quote: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

The whole truth is that polls "select" a group or demographic to poll and then post the results. Asking 5 people on the street in NYC is still a poll but not a representative poll of all voters . An interesting read is Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists

[temporal1]

Mark Twain popularized the quote: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

The whole truth is that polls "select" a group or demographic to poll and then post the results. Asking 5 people on the street in NYC is still a poll but not a representative poll of all voters . An interesting read is Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists

painful as it can be, sacred cows need to be/will be deposed. Mark Twain was good at doing his part.

[Josh]

I keep on having to check if I'm on MennoNet or one of the "alt right" forums I read. Sometimes some of this conversation feels like the latter.

Can't trust polls, can't trust media, no faith in politicians (unless they're Trump or Ben Carson), lots of sensational headlines… can't we better than this?

[Jazman]

I keep on having to check if I'm on MennoNet or one of the "alt right" forums I read. Sometimes some of this conversation feels like the latter.

Can't trust polls, can't trust media, no faith in politicians (unless they're Trump or Ben Carson), lots of sensational headlines… can't we better than this?

Unfortunately... probably not. (I agree with you btw) But this thing you describe has some deep roots in american christendom... I go to a cute little evangelical lanc conf church with the nicest, most welcoming people in the world (and I mean that) and I hear the same things constantly... And my FB feed, all from equally nice good christian, church-going, Bible believing folk is the same (and usually worse) If I knew what to do about it, I'd give some ideas here, but I don't other than waiting till God allows Reality to dawn.