Twitter | Search | |
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Where was all this "deep-dive" before the election—even as these outlets spent so much time on trivia in Wikileaks hacks & other innuendo?
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Only 65 pre-election stories for Trump and "Conflict of Interest" from WaPo, NYT & Politico. (Some are debate transcripts or about Clinton).
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Same time period (July 1st to November 8th), 369 stories on Clinton's email server on WaPo, NYT & Politico. (Plus 591 blog entries).
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci
Pre-election from NYT, WaPo & Politico: Clinton email server (first) outnumbered Trump conflict-of-interest stories five to one:1372 vs 279.
Reply Retweet Like More
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
I want to say there was great reporting & relentless journalists who did great work on both candidates. It was a minority of news coverage.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
To be super clear: I'm not saying press should have gone easy on Clinton. They should have focused on crucial issues for both candidates.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Yes, the story was there. Real work was done. But not at scale and persistence required of the topic. Drowned out.
Reply Retweet Like
AnthonyJuanBautista 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
The e-mail server was a crime under any other circumstance/perp.
Reply Retweet Like
Scott Klein 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
What’s the link to white people without a college degree? I don’t think they are the core readership of any of these sites.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @kleinmatic
These outlets shape national coverage. They are read by voters. Reluctant voters. Voters deciding to volunteer. Whether to vote.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @kleinmatic
Also, my issue isn't just about outcomes. This method of distraction is pernicious and plays to press weaknesses. Should learn.
Reply Retweet Like
Scott Klein 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Yet somehow the readers of these voted against Trump overwhelmingly. What about death of local papers? Or weakness of b’cast news?
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @kleinmatic
Add all that. You can't know what the electorate would look like has there been more appropriate focus for both candidates.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Because we do need good journalism; if we kill it because of its failings, we have even less. Sub to local news too.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 26 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Yes. Print media was heads and shoulders above TV. Though TV does take hints from print.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 27 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Yep. Media got played—dribs and drabs or trivia & gossip from hacks. Those files could easily been released at once.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 27 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
True. Also "data journalism" that acted like clickbait—constant updates, faux precision, key details in footnotes.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 27 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
That's right. It also helped media approach Trump as a negligible chance; which one should never do with nominees.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 27 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
538 was best—at least footnotes communicated uncertainty. However, the faux precise huge topline did not convey it; functioned as clickbait.
Reply Retweet Like
zeynep tufekci 27 Nov 16
Replying to @zeynep
Yep. Data journalism did lousy job of communicating its natural, inevitable error pattern. "Factiness" lulled folks.
Reply Retweet Like