this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
13 points (81.0% liked)

politics

19085 readers
3966 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

AI Summary thing I've been expirimenting with:


This article is a nuanced exploration of how internal polls and campaign dynamics are reported by journalists, particularly on social media platforms like Twitter. The author proposes a categorization system for levels of access to information:

  1. Level 3.1: Journalists reporting on internal polls or campaign mood without citing numbers directly.
  2. Level 3.2: Well-connected elites (e.g., politicians, strategists, donors) sharing internal polls or campaign sources within the media.
  3. Level 3.3: Random individuals on Twitter claiming to have seen internal polls.

The article highlights the potential for misinformation and spin at each level:

• Level 3.1: Journalists may repeat spin or uncritically pass along information from campaign sources, as seen in the Axios report mentioned in the article. • Level 3.2: Well-connected elites might share unverified or biased information, often without realizing it's not accurate or might be used to manipulate public opinion.

The author emphasizes that:

  1. Data beats vibes: Even if internal polls are not publicly available, data-driven reporting can provide a more objective picture of the campaign.
  2. Journalists should be cautious: Reporters should verify information, especially when it comes from well-connected elites or unverified sources.
  3. The feedback loop: As misinformation spreads through social media and elite networks, it can create a self-reinforcing narrative that becomes detached from reality.

The article also highlights the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in evaluating internal polls and campaign dynamics. By distinguishing between Level 3.1 reporting (which might be informative) and Levels 3.2 and 3.3 (where misinformation or spin is more likely to occur), readers can better navigate the complexities of electoral politics and media coverage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] edgarde@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Usually, campaigns won’t go Full McLaughlin; they’ll want to publish something within the range of credibility.

What is "Full McLaughlin"?

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think it's this guy. Don't quote me, but I think he's Trump's internal pollster guy. Apparently him an his outfit released a lot of polls that favored Trump and normally polls are released somewhat strategically (in Nate Silver's experience) rather than wholesale.

[–] edgarde@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Thanks. I was stuck on The McLaughlin Group's McLaughlin.