Forgve the obvious sarcastic 'chuntering' below, but I'm attempting to emulate those who believe
their scriptures are beyond reproach! I'm writing as an ass-hole Journalist!
...........................................
With recent revokings of website sponsorship, Twitter bans and the current mania of what is or isn't
fake news, one could be forgiven if taking to one's bed and pulling the covers up high -would be agreed
to be a fine decision.
(Allowing the reader to come to the conclusion that this isn't initially a heavy piece, but may have portions
that the reader will hopefully agree with. It's an old trick of inspiring confidence to settle the viewer into the
desired narrative)
Now it seems that the British Broadcasting Company, an institution that that is marvelled across the globe
for it's accuracy and informativeness, is being doubted by the man currently occupying the White House.
(Space to pad the article out on a website and ensure the writer's point isn't missed in the prose)
This week, President Trump barred the BBC and other prestigious news-outlets from the White House
briefings under the laughable reason that the mainstream media report untrue and biased accounts in
regards of his administration and Presidential behavior.
So to counter the billionaire's accusations of unfair, partisan points of view, we've maturely -and with deep
reflection of his claims, report this:
Did Trump win because his name came first in key states?
'One of the world's leading political scientists believes Donald Trump won the US presidential election
for a very simple reason, writes Hannah Sander - his name came first on the ballot in some critical
swing states.
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=1298]](http://rogue-nation3.com/attachment.php?aid=1298)
(Another image where the media take the p*ss out of the President's supposedly small hands)
Jon Krosnick has spent 30 years studying how voters choose one candidate rather than another, and
says that "at least two" US presidents won their elections because their names were listed first on the
ballot, in states where the margin of victory was narrow.
At first sight Krosnick's idea might seem to make little sense. Are voters really so easily swayed?
Most of them are not.
"Most of the people that voted Republican were always going to vote Republican and most of the people
that voted Democrat were always going to vote Democrat," says James Tilley, professor of politics at
the University of Oxford.
But a minority are.
"There is a human tendency to lean towards the first name listed on the ballot," says Krosnick, a politics
professor at Stanford University. "And that has caused increases on average of about three percentage
points for candidates, across lots of races and states and years."
Political scientists call this the primacy effect.
It has the biggest impact on those who know the least about the election they are voting in.
You are more likely to be affected, Krosnick says, "if you are feeling uninformed and yet feel obligated to
cast a vote - or if you are feeling deeply conflicted, say between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump."
When an election is very close the effect can be decisive, Krosnick says - and in some US states,
such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the 2016 election was very close...'
The BBC:
Oh, FFS.
their scriptures are beyond reproach! I'm writing as an ass-hole Journalist!
...........................................
With recent revokings of website sponsorship, Twitter bans and the current mania of what is or isn't
fake news, one could be forgiven if taking to one's bed and pulling the covers up high -would be agreed
to be a fine decision.
(Allowing the reader to come to the conclusion that this isn't initially a heavy piece, but may have portions
that the reader will hopefully agree with. It's an old trick of inspiring confidence to settle the viewer into the
desired narrative)
Now it seems that the British Broadcasting Company, an institution that that is marvelled across the globe
for it's accuracy and informativeness, is being doubted by the man currently occupying the White House.
(Space to pad the article out on a website and ensure the writer's point isn't missed in the prose)
This week, President Trump barred the BBC and other prestigious news-outlets from the White House
briefings under the laughable reason that the mainstream media report untrue and biased accounts in
regards of his administration and Presidential behavior.
So to counter the billionaire's accusations of unfair, partisan points of view, we've maturely -and with deep
reflection of his claims, report this:
Did Trump win because his name came first in key states?
'One of the world's leading political scientists believes Donald Trump won the US presidential election
for a very simple reason, writes Hannah Sander - his name came first on the ballot in some critical
swing states.
(Another image where the media take the p*ss out of the President's supposedly small hands)
Jon Krosnick has spent 30 years studying how voters choose one candidate rather than another, and
says that "at least two" US presidents won their elections because their names were listed first on the
ballot, in states where the margin of victory was narrow.
At first sight Krosnick's idea might seem to make little sense. Are voters really so easily swayed?
Most of them are not.
"Most of the people that voted Republican were always going to vote Republican and most of the people
that voted Democrat were always going to vote Democrat," says James Tilley, professor of politics at
the University of Oxford.
But a minority are.
"There is a human tendency to lean towards the first name listed on the ballot," says Krosnick, a politics
professor at Stanford University. "And that has caused increases on average of about three percentage
points for candidates, across lots of races and states and years."
Political scientists call this the primacy effect.
It has the biggest impact on those who know the least about the election they are voting in.
You are more likely to be affected, Krosnick says, "if you are feeling uninformed and yet feel obligated to
cast a vote - or if you are feeling deeply conflicted, say between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump."
When an election is very close the effect can be decisive, Krosnick says - and in some US states,
such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the 2016 election was very close...'
The BBC:
Oh, FFS.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.