+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Clinton's odds are generally 1-5, Trump is 4-1.
I think we can all agree that this has been a bizarre election. It seems an awful lot of people will vote according to who they hate the least.
Perhaps it's the type of sites I visit, but the comments at my regular haunts are 95% pro Trump. I ended up at the Huffington Post to read an article the other day. I'm used to reading slanted MSM stuff but that one was so absurdly biased that not even the BBC would publish it. There was, I think, 1,200 reader comments on it, and I spent 10 minutes scrolling through them before giving up on finding anyone who wasn't going to vote for Clinton.
Just like many constituencies in this country, a lot of states in the USA always vote the same way for ideological reasons regardless of the candidates' merits. I say ideological when it's really 'who'll give me the most free dosh.'
I'd say there's a 1% chance that Trump's a real alternative, so contrary to popular opinion it will make no difference who wins.
Bloody hell, has it taken this long for the penny to drop?
This is why it's always been so ridiculous to hear you talk about the Alternative News. Just as the Guardian and the Mail have very different views in mainstream, you can find Alternative News sites from across the spectrum too. People think that their view is more widespread than it really is because their social media is full of what they want to hear. What you're experiencing is no different, as you found when you went to Huffington.
No, that Huffington Post piece was pure propaganda. The comments must have been filtered for there not to have any dissenting voices. I'd link it here but I cleared months of internet history yesterday. Something else it had was incredible editor's notes at the end of the article just to hammer home how supposedly dangerous Trump was.
Here's an article they published yesterday which has the same editor's note at its end. Take a look then try and contend that it's anything other than ridiculous tosh. I've seen Huffington Post journalists interviewed on the BBC for their insights. Even TruBlue wouldn't describe this as objective. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0aac624863e02
I think at times you forget websites live off clicks. Media get funding through its audience figures. Money off ads.
Huff post does exactly that. It will report on what gets the biggest reaction. 5.1k shares on that crappy article for example. People are like goldfish, they will forget. You just clicked on that article, shared it, gaining how many views?. Yet you will forget about it in a few days. You have done exactly what they wanted you to do.
The majority of populations do not want incisive news reporting. They want wish washy headlines that are easily absorbed after a long days work, while struggling to look after their kids.
The BBC may have a stance on something and it reports along that line. But to say it is biased in totality is wrong. Its subject base is so wide, the vast majority of its reporting is accurate and better than anything else available.
I don't think a lot of people value it at times. That is why the world service is biggest broadcaster on the planet - People in foreign countries think it is credible.
Lumped a tenner on at 9/2. Money to be made, folks...