Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Example: media distorts reality subliminally - Ron Paul MSNBC poll results.

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 
Oh yeah?

How bout you copy and paste that html you can "see" here then as your proof?
Proof, or its just your opinion.


This information comes from the html of the page, with all of the code cut out of it except for the important values. I pulled up the source code to check this out for myself, instead of going on just what I read.

Ron Paul style="width:100%;" 58.7%
Mitt Romney style="width:24%" 14%
Rick Perry style="width:20%;" 11.9%
Jon Huntsman style="width:10%;" 5.9%
Newt Gingrich style="width:7%;" 3.9%
Herman Cain style="width:5%;" 2.9%
Michele Bachmann style="width:3%;" 1.8%
Rick Santorum style="width:2%;" 0.9%

The percentages are based on a 600pixel graph - that maxes out at 50% All of the voting percentage values are doubled, giving the width percentage, except for RP's because it's above 50%.

What I mean when I say 600pixel graph, is that all of the bars (except RP's) are double what they should be. Mitt Romney is supposed to have his bar go 24% across, based on the input information, but it goes about 50% across the graph (shown on the website). Same with Perry's, it goes about 40% across instead of the 20% he won.

YES, it's skewed against Paul, because he was a landslide winner. The graph is set to max out at 50%, but only shows up until 25%. No other reason. It was set up the same way from the beginning, and wasn't changed as soon as Paul started winning. (unless there is proof of this)

My point: Anyone that would have gotten more than 25%, would have had the same thing happen to them.
The conclusion: Unless MSNBC knew for a fact that Paul would win over 25% of votes, it's not crafted JUST to make him look bad.
edit on 11-9-2011 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


So your theory it was an accidental coding error.

The problem with this theory is apparently they kept changing the code so it always misrepresented Ron Paul..

Here is another ATS thread showing the same poll at an even earlier stage with more skewed graphic:


So they obviously INTENDED to show Ron Paul's results as less.

Sorry, this is no accident.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


You're right, and here's how they did it. The only thing different between the two graphs is the maximum percentage that's allowed to show on the graph. The one you showed is set at 20%, while the other one was set at around 30%. Since they were already changing it during the vote (if it's not an automated process), they could have easily changed it to 50% or 60% (or even 100) to accommodate all of RP's votes. So yeah, they didn't go out of their way to help Ron Paul look good.

I didn't realize they changed variables midway through the voting, but that's why I asked for proof of it in a previous post. Thanks for clearing it up.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


Thank you for your technical insight


They have been caught doing this exact same thing several times I'm aware of.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Holy *p, their web designer/programmer must truly suck. Those graphics are really *ed up and its hard to believe that something like that goes live on a site like MSNBC *without* thinking its intentional.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Your second graph showing a pattern of skewed results,

and for those who further need enlightenment...that is dis·pro·por·tion·ate

/ˌdisprəˈpôrSHənit/

Adjective: Too large or too small in comparison with something else.

In comparison to the percentages... should clear up any thoughts
of unitentional misrepresentation on the part of these msms sites.


I could just see convultions of the big "players" if their results were skewed...

edit on 11-9-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


Thanks for your attempt to explain html code from the site, though its not in qoutes...
Really no matter of the supposed html code on the site,
that is actually part of the intentional visual results!



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


Thanks for your attempt to explain html code from the site, though its not in qoutes...
Really no matter of the supposed html code on the site,
that is actually part of the intentional visual results!




What I posted was directly from the html. I couldn't post all of it, so I clipped out the important values. The tags in it screwed with the coding on this forum.

No matter, I liked doing the detective work for you guys.






top topics



 
36
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join