(03-04-2019, 06:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: https://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/trump-jobs-tracker/


Jan added 200k and Feb added 313k which would move Trump to On Track... Are they that biased that they are waiting for it to fall below average before updating it again?? Or are they just hoping that most people don't realize it hasn't been updated since Jan 5?

(03-04-2019, 06:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: lol.  

The Trumpsters are always looking for a fight.

(03-04-2019, 06:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: lol.  

The Trumpsters are always looking for a fight.

(03-04-2019, 06:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah it might not be that important, but it's still kind of a fair point. Why no update indeed? If the numbers are as claimed and he'd be "on track" as of now - which I will believe - this non-update is a bit ridiculous.

(03-04-2019, 06:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not looking for a fight, that's your job.
I'm pointing out the CNN Bias against Trump.

Do you dispute the bias? Do you have any DATA to show otherwise?

(03-04-2019, 06:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: When did they update it in the past? Monthly? Quarterly?  Are the February numbers out and set?

Could be lots of reasons.  Mike M seems to know the numbers without CNN telling him but that they didn't upset him.  lol.


Well, enough about me.

You're "pointing out" that one site doesn't have the numbers posted you want...yet.

"bias"

(03-04-2019, 06:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: When did they update it in the past? Monthly? Quarterly?  Are the February numbers out and set?

Could be lots of reasons.  Mike M seems to know the numbers without CNN telling him but that they didn't upset him.  lol.

(03-04-2019, 06:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: lol.  

The Trumpsters are always looking for a fight.

(03-04-2019, 06:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: He makes the point that CNN is biased against Trump. Which is a fair point in general, they are. (I just blame Trump for that.)

As for the numbers, bbc already has them, so well. The assumption they don't update the tracker because they don't want to seems at least reasonable enough.

(03-04-2019, 07:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Heck he could have just posted the numbers and said look how good Trump is doing but instead had to "show" CNN is biased.

(03-04-2019, 07:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: Is it your opinion that CNN is not biased against Trump?

(03-04-2019, 07:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: Is it your opinion that CNN is not biased against Trump?

(03-04-2019, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: What does "biased" mean in this context?  I don't think CNN deliberately hides data or fudges numbers or lies to make Trump look bad. Even if an individual reporter attempted that sometime, I would need evidence that "bias" was somehow a CNN policy, and not just a consequence of reporting what Trump does on a daily basis.

Quote:https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods

How AllSides Rates Media Bias: Our Methods
The AllSides Media Bias Rating TM is based on scientific, multipartisan analysis.
Bias is normal. If you've got a pulse, you've got a bias. But hidden bias misleads and divides us. That's why we created the AllSides Media Bias Rating.
Remember, there is no such thing as unbiased news. The best we can do is create balance and get multiple perspectives. That is why media bias ratings are so important.
Media bias ratings are a powerful tool. They allow us to easily look at a news story or issue from different perspectives. This helps us to better evaluate, understand, and contextualize the information we consume. By making media bias transparent, we free ourselves from filter bubbles so we can better understand the world— and each other.
Join us in making bias more transparent everywhere. Rate your own bias and help us to rate the media bias of other news sources.








What do the media bias ratings mean?

These are subjective judgements made by people across the country. Here is our rough approximation for what the media bias ratings mean:
Left - Lean Left - Center - Lean Right - Right.
Note that "Center" does not always mean unbiased, neutral or reasonable, just as "far Left" and "far Right" do not always mean "extreme" or "unreasonable." Learn more about what a Center media bias rating means here. Think of our bias ratings as points of view, each providing pieces of the puzzle, to help you gain a more holistic view.
How AllSides Calculates Media Bias
AllSides rates media bias using a patented media bias detection and display technology that drives what is arguably the world's most effective and up-to-date media bias detection engine. It's powered by the best statistical research and methodologies. We've rated the bias of nearly 600 media outlets and writers.
You help to drive the media bias ratings.
What you do at AllSides affects our media bias ratings. That includes how you rate your own bias and how you rate the bias of news sites on our Media Bias Ratings page, in our blind bias surveys, and throughout our site. All of this is taken into account in our data, which includes multiple methodologies and is statistically normalized to represent the average judgement of Americans.
AllSides uses multiple methods for calculating media bias ratings.
Our blind bias survey, described in the graphic below, represents our most robust media bias rating method, but it is not the only method we use. A source might openly share its bias, or it may be determined by third party research, an independent review, or an editorial review. Take a look at the multiple methods AllSides uses to measure and rate media bias.

Our media bias detection engine gets smarter as time goes on. The more you participate, the better our bias ratings will be.
How AllSides Displays Media Bias Ratings
Throughout AllSides.com, you will find references to the media bias ratings of media outlets, writers, and more. 
We rate media bias using a patented process to identify and display the average judgement of Americans. We update AllSides Media Bias Ratings and our confidence levels as more data is gathered and assessed, or as outlets change their bias over time. That means the media bias ratings are fluid and updated as new information is assessed.
See all of our media bias ratings on the AllSides Media Bias Ratings page. On a media source’s page, you’ll see:
1. The media bias rating for that source
2. How we assigned the media bias rating
3. Which methods influenced our rating
4. How confident we are in our rating of that source’s bias.
Click on the name of any media source or writer for more information. Here's what our media bias ratings look like throughout the site: 
HuffPost 
CBS 
USA Today 
Fox News 
National Review 

Unless otherwise noted, a media bias rating refers only to a source’s online news articles, not on the source’s opinion pieces, TV, or radio. The opinion writers from the same media source may have different bias ratings, so individual writers often are rated separately.
The Basis of the Media Bias Rating
On the media bias rating page for any given source, you'll see the methods we used for that rating listed with a check mark next to them.

• Blind Bias Survey. If this is checked, the media bias rating is driven by data from our blind bias surveys. We gather readers from all parts of the political bias spectrum, and have them read and rate articles blindly — without telling them who wrote the article or which media outlet it came from. Then, we take the average bias rating of several articles from a given media outlet to arrive at our final bias rating. AllSides normalizes this data, making sure that the survey audience accurately reflects the social and political diversity of the nation. This prevents “gaming” (when an individual or group tries to unfairly impact the ratings) or giving too much influence to any segment of the population. This robust evaluation is at the core of the patented AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ methodology.
• Third Party Data. If this is checked, the media bias rating has been influenced by third-party research or data that AllSides has determined to be credible. Examples of this include academic research by UCLA and well-sourced articles in Wikipedia. AllSides notes which studies or research it uses in the bias rating for each source.
• Community Feedback. Users can indicate whether or not they agree with our ratings, but our ratings are not determined by community votes. Instead, AllSides simply uses community feedback as a “warning system” that our current bias ratings may be off.This feedback is not blind. When people rate sources, they can see which source they are rating, how AllSides has previously rated the source, and how other people have voted. Since voting is not blind, it is subject to bias itself, as users are influenced by their preconceived notions or other people’s opinions.
  Community feedback is not normalized. In other words, the raw data has not been balanced to fairly represent the various segments and groups in America. For example, if 100% of the people who rated a source were Liberal, the media bias ratings they give would be very biased toward their own point of view, and not representative of America overall. A news outlet that Americans might on average consider “Left” might instead be rated by this Left group as “Center,” because the source more closely reflects their own views.
  If a lot of people disagree with one of our bias ratings, it does not prompt us to outright change the bias rating, but rather, may trigger us to conduct more robust blind surveys, editorial reviews, or other kinds of research to sharpen the bias rating accuracy.
  AllSides shows the raw votes by our users, with the first number representing the people who agree with our bias rating, and the second number represent those who disagree. We color code these for easy reference:
  
  
  
  
  It is not unusual for more than half of people to say they disagree with an AllSides Media Bias Rating, but the average rating is often in line with the AllSides Media Bias Rating. For example, AllSides may have rated a source as “Lean Left,” and the majority of people say they disagree with that rating. But more than half will rate that source as “Left,” and the rest will rate it as “Center” or “Lean Right." That means the average will equal “Lean Left," thus supporting the original AllSides Media Bias Rating. See notes for each source for more details.
  Sometimes, you will see a media bias rating to the right of this community feedback indicator. This is the average rating of people who disagreed with the AllSides bias ratings and who bothered to also submit what they think the rating is (many disagree but do not rate themselves). It is not the average rating of the community at large since it does not include those who agree with the AllSides rating, those who disagree but did not rate, and is not normalized to reflect all of America (so one group can easily be over-represented, skewing the results.)
• Editorial Review. If this is checked, the AllSides editorial staff — which includes people from across the political spectrum — has reviewed the works of this source and came to a general consensus on its bias. These reviews always include a diversity of individuals covering the range of bias from left to right. Sometimes we also do "blind" editorial reviews when our editorial staff does not know the source of the content they are rating.
• Independent Research. If this is checked, the bias rating is influenced by online research performed by AllSides. Staff may review sample content and investigate what the media and other sources, both partisan and nonpartisan, report about the political leanings of this source. This method is frequently used for initial bias ratings before stronger methods can be applied.
  
  

The Confidence Level in our Media Bias Rating
The Confidence Level on an AllSides Media Bias Rating page may show as Low or Initial, Medium or High, depending on how confident we are about the bias rating of the media source. We base our Confidence Level on two things:

1. How many methods have been applied and which methods have been applied. The more reliable methods applied, the higher our Confidence Level. For example, we usually give more weight to our Blind Surveys and the less weight to what we call Secondary Research, which is an AllSides staff member’s initial assessment of bias based on online research.
2. The strength and consistency of the data. The more strength and consistency in the bias information, the higher our Confidence Level. For example, with Secondary Research, if a journalist is self-described as “conservative” and Wikipedia labels her that way too, that shows both strength and consistency. If the Community Feedback includes thousands of users, that has more impact than feedback from fewer votes. If we take academic Third Party Data into consideration in a bias rating, but the research is 20 years old, we wouldn’t give it as much weight as more recent data. Or, if two of our assessment methods indicate the source is Right, but one of our methods indicates it’s Left, our Confidence Level in the bias rating is lower.
   

We are constantly evolving the media bias rating engine. The more you participate, the better our media bias ratings will be, and the more sources we can rate. 
Rate your own bias to get started. We're continuing to improve ways to help you get the most accurate bias self-rating so you can participate on AllSides and in life with transparency and self-awareness. Make the world a better place by understanding and sharing your own bias openly!

(03-04-2019, 07:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Conservative media outlets went crazy over this last March, according to a google search. Web Archives seems to confirm that they willingly started this tracker while Trump's numbers were "on track", so I don't think there's a conspiracy.

They probably just didn't have the traffic that warranted keeping it up. It also seems like the person who was running it left CNN in July of 2017, so the person who replaced her likely didn't have the same investment in it.

Or it could be fake news trying to smear the name of Donald Trump. They probably haven't posted a single article of the economy doing well either.

(03-04-2019, 08:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes she did leave, but it was updated after she left, so I don't buy that as a full excuse and with all the media attention it has gotten? Nah

(03-04-2019, 09:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's kind of fun tracing the story. It first popped up on r/TheDonald on 3/9, then the DailyCaller ran with it the next day. Mark Levin had it on 3/11, and the by 3/12 it was on Fox News.

Crazy how some random incel on reddit can create a media frenzy.

(03-04-2019, 08:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well the media attention was a year ago and they still haven't touched it. I'm going to assume it's just a project that fell by the wayside.