The New York Times is changing a voting data graphic that many readers claim led them to falsely believe then-candidate Donald Trump would lose the 2016 presidential election in a landslide.
The NYT is working to avoid triggering panic attacks among people who felt the election needle duped them into believing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win. The needle supposedly created confusion between real-life election data and flawed predictive polling.
“Until we get a sufficient sampling of early results to make that model meaningful, we won’t even surface the needle,” Managing Editor Joe Kahn told Vanity Fair’s Joe Pompeo Monday.There will now be two needles – one for the House and one for the Senate – and neither will be placed high up on the front page, he said.
“People have expressed a concern that even though our real-time election model is extremely valuable, that despite that, we should still be very cautious about featuring the needle prominently in our coverage on Election Night—not because we’re not confident in it, but because certain readers may have a nervous reaction to the re-introduction of the needle,” he added.
I have to say, "we will delay or minimize information which may make our readers feel uncomfortable" is quite the strong journalistic practice.
Too bad, we’ll miss out on these gems
The NYT is working to avoid triggering panic attacks among people who felt the election needle duped them into believing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win. The needle supposedly created confusion between real-life election data and flawed predictive polling.
“Until we get a sufficient sampling of early results to make that model meaningful, we won’t even surface the needle,” Managing Editor Joe Kahn told Vanity Fair’s Joe Pompeo Monday.There will now be two needles – one for the House and one for the Senate – and neither will be placed high up on the front page, he said.
“People have expressed a concern that even though our real-time election model is extremely valuable, that despite that, we should still be very cautious about featuring the needle prominently in our coverage on Election Night—not because we’re not confident in it, but because certain readers may have a nervous reaction to the re-introduction of the needle,” he added.
I have to say, "we will delay or minimize information which may make our readers feel uncomfortable" is quite the strong journalistic practice.
Too bad, we’ll miss out on these gems
