“Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” I find this stunt by ABC News today as astounding as it is unforgivable.
The Axis, as I noted yesterday, is shaken to its core by polling data that seems to show that Kamala Harris’s efforts to hide, lie, cackle and flip-flop her way to the White House is no longer working despite the news media’s intense assistance. Meanwhile, Nate Silver posted today that his analytical model gives Trump a 53.4% chance of winning Wisconsin, 54.9% in Michigan, 60.8% in Nevada, and a 64.9% chance of winning Pennsylvania, giving Trump a likely 312 votes in the Electoral College.
So ABC, determined to rescue their party’s flagging spirits, published a story headlined, “Harris support rises among some likely voters: POLL.” “As previously reported, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by a slight 4 percentage points, 50-46%, among all adults and registered voters alike, and by 6 points, 52-46%, among likely voters in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. While those numbers are virtually identical, closer assessment shows movement to Harris in some groups when comparing all adults with likely voters — notably, those younger than 40, younger women in particular and Black people,” this trusted name in journalism announced.
The article is textbook deceit, and deceit is an insidious form of lie. “As previously reported” is right: the data being reported was from a poll taken between August 23, the night Kamala Harris spoke at the Democratic National Convention, and August 27, when the media “joy” campaign was at full blast. The other deceitful word is “latest“: this was indeed the most recent ABC poll, but not a new poll. ABC reported an old poll as if it were a new poll. You can’t be more fake-newsy than that.
To sum up, because new polls are showing that Harris’s inevitable slide back to where she belongs has begun, ABC decided to recycle an old poll taken before reality dawned to make the more recent polls seem less reliable.
I can’t make the ethical condemnation of this strong enough. ABC deliberately set out to deceive the public. I am determined to keep emotion out of this, but it is hard not to hate these people.There must be some way to punish a news source that does this. Not watching ABC News ever again is a start.
Ethics Alarms 
64.9% chance of winning Pennsylvania,
I’m subbed to Nate’s newsletter, where did you get this number from? I must be missing it.
What number do you have? If my source was wrong, I’ll correct it. You do know the number is irrelevant to the post, right?
BREAKING – Trump GAINS AGAIN in Nate Silver’s election model
WIN ODDS:
🔴 Trump: 64.4% (+29.1)
🔵 Harris: 35.3%
TRUMP SWING STATE ODDS:
🔴 WISCONSIN: 53.4%
🔴 MICHIGAN: 54.9%
🔴 NEVADA: 60.8%
🔴 PENNSYLVANIA: 64.9%
🔴 GEORGIA: 68.9%
🔴 NORTH CAROLINA: 76.2%
🔴 ARIZONA: 76.6%
Do you have a link? I’m pretty sure that’s totally inaccurate and not what Nate’s model is saying.
I don’t have that number at all, or any of them. Did you look at the link you posted to see what Nate’s model is measuring?
If they’re not relevant to the post then you should delete them! Make the post more snappy. I thought I was missing something, where did you find those numbers?
Okay it looks like those numbers are accurate but you can’t access them with the link you provided.
That makes six (with this, seven) comments that added nothing to the post or the issue at hand, nor any useful related information.
Actually, Thor’s comments are useful. They provide us with excellent examples of worthless commentary and how everyone should not behave.
In fairness to Thor, I could not find the numbers either.
I think I understand what you mean when you say the numbers are irrelevant, but, in a conversation, it is helpful to know what information an argument is based upon.
Most of Thor’s comments seek clarification of information in the post.
-Jut
Nope. His agenda since he got here is to discredit me. I linked to Silver’s newsletter: I didn’t check to see if the numbers appeared there: I assumed they would, and it was a fair assumption. So the proper course for a good faith reader is to find the link to the numbers quoted and include them in a comment. I’m alone here. I have to make a living while churning out this stuff that takes away from my limited time to do profitable work. The key point was that Silver is saying that the polls show Harris is losing steam, and even that is tangential. The issue is ABC engaging in unethical journalism. A commenter like Thor wants to distract attention from the real issue and focus on whether my links are sufficient so the real point is missed.
Jack: “So the proper course for a good faith reader is to find the link to the numbers quoted and include them in a comment.”
I agree there. If it were me, I would have provided the link, as would many others here, I presume. I think that is a fair criticism.
I don’t know that I agree that Thor’s agenda is to discredit you personally, though.
-Jut
Maybe they should be charged with election fraud. Reporting old news to seem like it just happened sounds like a deliberate attempt to put one over on the public to me. That said, maybe we should wait and see what happens tonight in the debate. It’s entirely possible for Trump to sink himself and also just as possible for Harris to show that she can’t put a coherent sense together without a prompter. I do not think she will turn in as dismal performance as Biden did, so that should not be counted on. I’m guessing that, like when Trump and Hillary debated in 2016 it will just serve as confirmation bias for people whose minds are already made up. Harris partisans will say she mopped the floor with Trump while Trump partisans will say he swallowed her whole and spat out her shoes.
When will ABC report on the Democrat plan to pass legislation that will add Justices to the Supreme Court which will disqualify the most senior justices from voting. I first heard about this on WMAL this morning but apparently the legislation is part of the SCOTUS packing plan. According to what I heard this plan will effectively eliminate conservatives on the court.
These are the substantive issues news media should be reporting so the electorate can make an informed decision.
THEN: “But the painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill and around the nation — including some who helped put her on the party’s 2020 ticket — said SHE HAS NOT RISEN TO THE CHALLENGE OF PROVING HERSELF AS A FUTURE LEADER of the party, much less the country. EVEN SOME DEMOCRATS whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes CONFIDED PRIVATELY THAT THEY HAD LOST HOPE IN HER.” NYT-02/06/2023 (bolds/caps/italics mine)
NOW: She’s EXCITING…and, you know, like JOY.
PWS
It appears that polls are used to tell one group of sheep where they are in the pasture relative to another group of sheep.
Polls only matter to those who are only concerned about winning. The media spends far too much time analyzing polls and not the proposed policies.
Perhaps it is time for the nation to decide who will be in charge gladiator style. Then we can have real betting on which candidate can best his or her opponent. Maybe a lawn dart challenge game would captivate the public where each candidate stands in the target ring That seems to be want our public wants.
I propose curling.
jvb
Yeah, I want to see the detailed polling data. Specifically, which graveyards were selected and how many people from each?
A great line from Prof. Turley’s column about NPR bias which could just as well be applied to bias at ABC and elsewhere:
“’Balance’ is viewed by many as considering whether Trump is an existential threat to democracy or to humanity.”