
Which media outlets are “leaning” toward which candidate [pdf] - pkaeding
http://cosmicweenie.com/LeanerReport.pdf
======
dalke
Is this supposed to be a serious analysis or a gut feeling?

Why are Intelligence Agencies included in a report about media outlets and
their reporting? (And why not the NIH, or NASA, or other US agencies?)

Why is Clinton sometime referred to as "Clinton" and other times referred to
as "Hillary"? The inconsistency feels sloppy.

Why are France 24 and some European media listed but not US-based Univision?

~~~
pkaeding
I believe it is meant to be a serious analysis after observing many (but
clearly not all) media outlets. I suspect the intelligence agencies are
included due to their ties to media outlets (while other government agencies
have less to do with media).

I agree that it could use a lot more polish and copy-editing for consistency.

~~~
justinlardinois
It could use an explanation of what it's trying to accomplish and what its
conclusions are based on. As it stands this is the equivalent of a blurry
infographic that your grandma shared on Facebook.

------
justinlardinois
cosmicweenie.com redirects to cosmicweenie.com/blog, which gives a 404 error.

The whois entry uses a privacy service.

Who wrote this? What are these "findings" based on? What does it mean to
"lean" in the context of this document? Why is it on the front page of Hacker
News?

~~~
pkaeding
It was written by the tech columnist John C. Dvorak, who also co-hosts the
media analysis podcast No Agenda. I believe the findings are based his
analysis.

