Over the last few months, we've talked about the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news." We warned that focusing on "fake news" as a problem was not just silly and pointless, but that it would quickly morph into calls for censorship. And, even worse, that censorship power would be in the hands of whoever got to define what "fake news" was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:51AM
There's gotta be a better source for a counterpoint.
Or, if there isn't then maybe there is no legitimate counterpoint...
There have been some decent analyses of polling failures recently, like these:
(the last one in particular explains differential non-response and it did so before the election)
The “spiral of silence”: how pollsters got the Colombia-FARC peace deal vote so wrong - Vox
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/10/6/13175608/polls-colombia-farc-peace-deal-vote-wrong [vox.com]
Can You Trust Trump’s Approval Rating Polls? | FiveThirtyEight
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-you-trust-polling-in-the-age-of-trump/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
Poll aggregators seem to be killing off actual polling - Vox
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/2/13496432/2016-polls [vox.com]
Be skeptical when polls show the presidential race swinging wildly - Vox
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/6/13540646/poll-shifts-misleading-clinton-leads-trump [vox.com]