Survey: 1/6 Biden voters unaware of key stories, would've changed their votes

[phill4paul]

Report: Survey shows 1 out of 6 Biden voters were unaware of key stories involving Biden that would’ve changed their vote

The left-wing news media didn’t just poison the information environment with their incessantly negative coverage of President Trump going into the 2020 election. They also refused to give airtime to important arguments of the Republican campaign — both pro-Trump and anti-Biden — which meant millions of voters cast their ballots knowing only what the media permitted them to know about the candidates.

To measure the true effect of the media’s censorship on the election, the Media Research Center asked The Polling Company to survey 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), six of which (all but North Carolina) were called for Biden (survey details below). We tested these voters’ knowledge of eight news stories — all important topics that our ongoing analysis had shown the liberal news media had failed to cover properly. We found that a huge majority (82%) of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of these key items, with five percent saying they were unaware of all eight of the issues we tested.

This lack of information proved crucial: One of every six Biden voters we surveyed (17%) said they would have abandoned the Democratic candidate had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories. A shift of this magnitude would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden, and Donald Trump would have comfortably won a second term as president.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...residency-2020

[dannno]

Trump would have won 311 Electoral College votes if media weren't biased: Survey

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-biased-survey



New Survey PROVES Media LIES And Censorship STOLE Trump's Reelection Victory

[ResponsibleIdiot]

I've heard of a study mentioned before where they asked right wing people to describe left wing positions, and asked left wing people to describe right wing positions. The conclusion was that the right wing people were much more accurate in describing left wing positions than the opposite.

It's kinda disgusting that the lefties go around calling all right-wing/libertarian people stupid, hateful, anti-science, and racist when those words describe themselves pretty spot on. I don't get it. I don't want to call these people mentally ill, but if they aren't, they sure fooled me.

[phill4paul]

I've heard of a study mentioned before where they asked right wing people to describe left wing positions, and asked left wing people to describe right wing positions. The conclusion was that the right wing people were much more accurate in describing left wing positions than the opposite.

It's kinda disgusting that the lefties go around calling all right-wing/libertarian people stupid, hateful, anti-science, and racist when those words describe themselves pretty spot on. I don't get it. I don't want to call these people mentally ill, but if they aren't, they sure fooled me.

Progressives always, ALWAYS, project upon those that don't kow-tow to them that which they themselves are guilty of.

[Anti Globalist]

That's what happens when the media keep censoring any stories about Hunter Biden.

[Pauls' Revere]

Re: FACEBOOK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/24/t...formation.html

Facebook Struggles to Balance Civility and Growth
Employees and executives are battling over how to reduce misinformation and hate speech without hurting the company’s bottom line.

SAN FRANCISCO — In the tense days after the presidential election, a team of Facebook employees presented the chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, with an alarming finding: Election-related misinformation was going viral on the site.

In response, the employees proposed an emergency change to the site’s news feed algorithm, which helps determine what more than two billion people see every day. It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls “news ecosystem quality” scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

Typically, N.E.Q. scores play a minor role in determining what appears on users’ feeds. But several days after the election, Mr. Zuckerberg agreed to increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores to make sure authoritative news appeared more prominently, said three people with knowledge of the decision, who were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

The change was part of the “break glass” plans Facebook had spent months developing for the aftermath of a contested election. It resulted in a spike in visibility for big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR, while posts from highly engaged hyperpartisan pages, such as Breitbart and Occupy Democrats, became less visible, the employees said.

It was a vision of what a calmer, less divisive Facebook might look like. Some employees argued the change should become permanent, even if it was unclear how that might affect the amount of time people spent on Facebook. In an employee meeting the week after the election, workers asked whether the “nicer news feed” could stay, said two people who attended.

The news feed debate illustrates a central tension that some inside Facebook are feeling acutely these days: that the company’s aspirations of improving the world are often at odds with its desire for dominance.

In the past several months, as Facebook has come under more scrutiny for its role in amplifying false and divisive information, its employees have clashed over the company’s future. On one side are idealists, including many rank-and-file workers and some executives, who want to do more to limit misinformation and polarizing content. On the other side are pragmatists who fear those measures could hurt Facebook’s growth, or provoke a political backlash that leads to painful regulation.

[jmdrake]

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...residency-2020

Not surprising. But it's so much easier to just say they hate freedom. I will add to this that Trump did a much better job in the second debate explaining reasons why people should vote for him as opposed to the first debate where it seemed his only strategy was to try to get Joe to blow a gasket. But that's what happens when you let Chris Christie do your debate prep (first debate). The second debate Trump skipped the debate prep. Chris Christie was a saboteur.

[phill4paul]

Not surprising. But it's so much easier to just say they hate freedom. I will add to this that Trump did a much better job in the second debate explaining reasons why people should vote for him as opposed to the first debate where it seemed his only strategy was to try to get Joe to blow a gasket. But that's what happens when you let Chris Christie do your debate prep (first debate). The second debate Trump skipped the debate prep. Chris Christie was a saboteur.

His balls got chaffed when Trump didn't give him an admin position.