Which media outlets are “leaning” toward which candidate [pdf]

cosmicweenie.com

8 points·pkaeding··5 comments

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com