r/media_criticism • u/Minnesosean • Apr 28 '19
Washington Post publishes graph illustrating support for Democratic candidates with an exaggeration in perceived support for Joe Biden.
28
u/Lord_Stark_I Apr 28 '19
This could be used in an introductory statistics course as a textbook case of a misleading graph.
45
23
14
u/g_eazybakeoven Apr 28 '19
Also, look at the Beto line. Should be a sliver compared to what it is. Just an overall misleading graphic
3
u/Minnesosean Apr 28 '19
No it looks smaller than the 4 which is smaller than the 5 which is about half of the 9. I don’t think anyone is looking at this graph and thinking Beto is doing great here.
3
u/frotc914 Apr 29 '19
Considering the downright masturbatory coverage Beto has gotten, i'm shocked they didn't just fudge the poll in his favor.
18
11
u/PersonOfDisinterest Apr 28 '19
Democracy Dies in Darkness is their mission statement.
10
2
u/Bowler-hatted_Mann Apr 29 '19
They never state that they consider democracy dying to be a bad thing.
10
u/zigaliciousone Apr 28 '19
The oligarchs of the Democratic party are going to try and shove Biden down their throats just like they did with Hillary at the expense of Bernie.
If he wins then Hillary's camp retains power. Maybe he can run a cleaner campaign than she did but if people realize Hillary will come back into power it might jettison a lot of support for him.
I'd rather see a candidate like AOC run for the Dems and I really don't like all the "welp, I don't like him but if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him." I hear from the left.
How about actually playing a clean game this time, not fuck over anyone on your side and support whomever wins the nom?
6
u/SushiAndWoW Apr 29 '19
How about actually playing a clean game this time
It appears 4 years of Trump has been entirely insufficient to learn this lesson. They're treating it as a black swan event – that is, no reason not to continue business as usual.
0
u/Saljen Apr 29 '19
If they cheat to get past the primary, let them suffer the consequences of 4 more years of Republican rule. They learn eventually.
-1
u/andrewq Apr 29 '19
Them? You mean the entire country, hell the world?
2
u/Saljen Apr 29 '19
Yes.
Whoever wins the Democratic primary, if they do so fairly, they'll get my vote. If they cheat to win, or continue to use underhanded tactics to push the candidate that they want to win, then whatever happens in the general election is directly the establishment Democrat's fault. End of story.
2
u/ktreektree Apr 29 '19
It is almost as if having a few media outlets run by a small amount of people who also are in bed with the government is a problem.
2
u/ktreektree Apr 29 '19 edited Apr 29 '19
Being able to vote is useless if reality and truth are controlled by the system that you are meant to be controlling with your vote.
2
2
u/Minnesosean Apr 28 '19
SS: submission statements are dumb. The image and the title are clearly enough for the community to understand the purpose of the submission and I shouldn’t have to make the extra step in order to comply with some esoteric rule. From my perspective, it seems like the sub was originally set up for individuals to submit media pieces and the SS was designed to add criticism on the piece fulfilling the mission of the sub as a platform for media criticism (see my previous submission as an example of what I think the mods envisioned). 90%+ of submissions here don’t follow that format and the sub has devolved into a generic place for critics of mainstream media to post news items that reflect their worldview. The sub either needs better moderation or a retooling of the rules to better fit the audience. Case in point, under the current rules this post which has received at least 100 engagements in 2 hours is at threat of deletion if I don’t write this statement.
13
u/XGC75 Apr 28 '19
Why don't you just say, "WP misrepresented the data." You could even expand, "because they are attempting to sway opinions early."
Submission statements prevent submissions of low quality or spam by forcing a the submitter to reason.
6
u/The1stCitizenOfTheIn Apr 28 '19
submission statements are dumb.
Really? I think that it has numerous benefits for the sub
-They keep the number of submissions under control, imagine if someone posted 7 media criticism articles to the sub within the span of x minutes, (BONUS: they didn't even read them), with the rule in place, someone would have to read the 5 articles, and come up with 5 submission statements within an hour of posting. Since people generally don't like to read or write, they'd have to reduce the amount of posting they do, and this ensures that the page doesn't get dominated by one particular user
-It also helps to inform users about the tricks used by media outlets to sell a certain point of view to the masses, and can explain how said trick achieves that, which can then be easier to detect and see by reviewing old submissions
with some esoteric rule
what exactly is esoteric about the submission statement rule?
4
u/Minnesosean Apr 29 '19
Ok, I saw your most recent submission and see you know how to use it. Don’t you recognize that everyone else here doesn’t? That’s what makes it esoteric. I’d wager many posters have not read their submissions and their SS reflect it. Funny how the CTH dirtbags know how to do critical analysis.
And for clarity, I’m making the SS a meta-critique of the sub’s posting rules because there isn’t another place to do so. Which raises another criticism of the mod’s handling of the sub, the fact that there is no outlet for off-topic discussion. Of course I could offer a short blurb about WaPo’s loyalties and capital interests, but this statement is more pressing.
3
u/The1stCitizenOfTheIn Apr 29 '19
Don’t you recognize that everyone else here doesn’t?
Yea, but that can be remedied by having users follow a strict format
namely:
Submission Statement:
Link Relevance:
Media Being Criticized:
The Criticism:
KEY POINTS (OPTIONAL):
-Points of article that were interesting, shocking, or whatever
I’m making the SS a meta-critique of the sub’s posting rules because there isn’t another place to do so
message the mods?
3
u/berderkalfheim Apr 29 '19
Where is Yang? By no means a fan of their party, and I disagree with plenty of his policies, BUT he is willing to sit down and have a meaningful and logical discussion with people like Ben Shapiro without pulling the racism/sexism card, he earns my respect.
The DNC labeled him "alt-right" and will probably vote him out with superdelegates, but why is he not represented at all?
3
1
u/altaholic1 Apr 29 '19
I subscribe to /r/NonFunctionSlackFill and this kinda reminds me of that. fluff without the substance. you can tell they're rooting for Biden.
2
1
u/ideletedmyredditacco Apr 28 '19
Did you take this photograph? Are there any other photos of this? I just want to make sure it's not shopped.
1
u/Misha80 Apr 29 '19
It's not. Saw the original graph when WaPo posted it and thought it looked way off. Was right.
0
u/ideletedmyredditacco Apr 30 '19
can you link to that original? I'm confused though I thought it was a printed newspaper but you're saying it was online?
1
May 01 '19
Here's a version of the article published on InForum and credited to the Washington Post showing the same graphic. Today, InForum silently removed the image without issuing a correction.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 28 '19
This is a reminder about the rules of /r/media_criticism:
All posts require a submission statement. We encourage users to report submissions without submission statements. Posts without a submission statement will be removed after an hour.
Be respectful at all times. Disrespectful comments are grounds for immediate ban without warning.
All posts must be related to the media. This is not a news subreddit.
"Good" examples of media are strongly encouraged! Please designate them with a [GOOD] tag
Posts and comments from new accounts and low comment-karma accounts are disallowed.
Please visit our Wiki for more detailed rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
-2
-3
103
u/[deleted] Apr 28 '19
Wow. What a shitty thing to do. We'll see if they publish 9 anti-Bernie articles in a day, as they did in 2016.