#or the new york times reporter

[toiletepaperroll]

life as a haas fan and a ferrari fan is not good. 2025 is fucked. 2026 will be our year.

[contemplatingoutlander]

Three months after the 2024 election, three major news sources STILL don't agree on the final presidential popular vote count.

Given that it is now January 2025, I figured all the states must have finally finished counting their 2024 presidential votes--including some of the slower Western states. (I'm looking at you 😒 California.)

So I thought I'd check in with three major sources of voting information: The New York Times, The Cook Political Report, and CNN Politics, to see what the final presidential popular vote tallies were.

The Numbers Are STILL Slightly Different

What surprised me is that these three major sources of election information are still not in full agreement about the presidential vote counts.

Granted, the small difference between the highest (NY Times) and lowest (Cook Report) vote tallies for each candidate are small and not significant: 1,631 votes for Harris, and 1,576 votes for Trump.

Nevertheless, given that some states were won by laser-thin margins, it is still concerning that these three election news sources have three different tallies for both Harris and Trump.

Sources Please

Unfortunately, neither The Cook Political Report nor CNN listed the source of their vote tallies nor when they last updated their figures. At least the Times listed their source: the Associated Press, and noted that they had last updated their figures on Dec. 30th. It would be helpful if all major election information sources did the same.

No Logical Consistency in the Tallies

Given that the Times reported higher tallies for both Harris and Trump than were reported by The Cook Report and CNN, one might think that the latter two sources stopped updating their vote counts sooner than the Times.

The problem with that hypothesis though is that The Cook Political Report's tallies were actually higher for the TOTAL popular vote than were the Times' tallies: 155.2 million vs. 154.9 million, a difference of 0.3 million (or 300,000) votes. (Unfortunately, CNN Politics didn't report the total popular vote count.)

And if that was not confusing enough, the Times indicated that 100% of the votes in all the states had been counted (even California)--and yet, they also noted that their total popular presidential vote count of 154.9 million represented > 99% of the vote--NOT 100%.

Imagine If All Votes Were Hand Counted😳

Consider that these relatively minor discrepancies in the vote tallies occurred with electronic ballot counting.

Could you imagine how inconsistent the vote tallies would be if those hundreds of millions of votes were counted by hand--like Trump and some of the GOP want?

Pure chaos!

______________________ Note: All images were modified from their original sources. "Where are the results?" gif source, "Numbers" gif video clip source, "Check source" gif video clip source, "Winona Ryder confused" gif source, "Counting votes 1" source, "Counting votes 2" source, "Pure chaos" gif video clip source

[alwaysbewoke]

honestly, FUCK ISRAEL!!

[democracyunderground]

PRESIDENT BIDEN BRINGS THEM HOME

PAUL WHELEN

AFTER 5 AND A HALF YEARS IN PUTIN'S RUSSIAN PRISONS

EVAN GERSHKOVICH NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER

ALSU KERMASHIVA 288 DAYS AS A POLITICAL PRISONER

PRESIDENT BIDEN'S LAPEL PIN OF AN AMERICAN FLAG

IN TIME FOR A LITTLE GIRLS 13TH BIRTHDAY WITH HER MOM

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S HISTORIC DIRECT DIPLOMACY

[wrishwrosh]

something very charming about pop nonfiction written by substack people. always think its fun to read culture criticism written by people vastly more online than me in the exact style of a high school persuasive essay

[thoughtportal]

The Bloody Sunday Inquiry, also known as the Saville Inquiry or the Saville Report after its chairman, Lord Saville of Newdigate, was established in 1998 by British Prime Minister Tony Blair after campaigns for a second inquiry by families of those killed and injured in Derry on Bloody Sunday during the peak of The Troubles. It was published on 15 June 2010. The inquiry was set up to establish a definitive version of the events of Sunday 30 January 1972, superseding the tribunal set up under Lord Widgery that had reported on 19 April 1972,[1] 11 weeks after the events, and to resolve the accusations of a whitewash that had surrounded it.

The inquiry took the form of a tribunal established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, and consisted of Lord Saville, William L. Hoyt, the former Chief Justice of New Brunswick and John L. Toohey, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia.[2]

The judges finished hearing evidence on 23 November 2004,[3] and reconvened once again on 16 December to listen to testimony from another witness, known as Witness X, who had been unavailable earlier.[4]

The report was published on 15 June 2010. The British prime minister David Cameron addressed the House of Commons that afternoon where he acknowledged, among other things, that the paratroopers had fired the first shot, had fired on fleeing unarmed civilians, and shot and killed one man who was already wounded.[5] He then apologised on behalf of the British Government.[6]

[eretzyisrael]

by Rinat Harash

Distortion also plagued The New York Times report, which framed the entire story with comments from aid groups, and avoided mentioning the no-famine point by stating (in the 3rd paragraph) that the IPC has “stopped short of saying that a famine had begun.”

The BBC, The Telegraph and The Independent almost copy-pasted the IPC report verbatim, with headlines about the risk of famine:

These three outlets also uncritically parroted the report’s assessment that almost half a million Gazans now face “catastrophic” hunger — without mentioning that it’s down from the original estimate of 1.1 million.

Media Cop Out

Admittedly, news outlets must cover what bodies like the IPC report. And it’s true that the report sneakily started with the words: “A high risk of famine persists across the whole Gaza Strip.”

But journalists should read between the lines, understand the background, and not just take the IPC’s word as gospel, especially if its previous reports have been proven wrong.

Unfortunately, media outlets avoided this inconvenience and chose to perpetuate the false famine narrative.

After all, it’s an easy cop-out that hides their own faults of parroting unreliable sources.

[bloodglucose]

wait no the funniest childe merch related incident was when i bought my nui from a store in germany and the mail carrier almost sent him BACK to europe bc the store wrote my fucking address wrong

[phoenixyfriend]

Some of the comments I get on my posts about the NYT just have me going "you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater"

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

The New York Times continues in its self-imposed disgrace, this time giving credence to claims that for some, Hebrew 'symbolizes far-right militarism'.

As a spokesman from the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis reported, this same paper has previously condemned anyone who has a prejudice against the Arabic language.

This latest risible display will join a long list of New York Times displays of hostility and disdain for Israel.

[alwaysbewoke]

[jennifersbod]

just found out i’m related to a noteworthy soviet activist

[nonsensemachine]

I received a subscription to the NYT for a year as a gift, and despite my long-standing hatred of the paper for their role in cheerleading the US into the 2003 Iraq invasion, I gave it a shot. There are occasionally some decent pieces, but in the end my verdict was the same: This is a paper that exists to legitimize and shill for the status quo. It is not the paper of record, it is certainly not the left, and they are absolutely lying to you when they find it convenient to do so.

[ivygorgon]

Even ChatGPT is in on it. Sickening

You just know the NYT has a “style guide” for this sort of thing.

Maybe someone there should get fed up and leak it.