I am tired of having to listen to all the side theories of every major news outlet and their interpretations of the votes as they come in. Is there anyone better than another to get more solid info and less bullshit?

  • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
    807·
    17 days ago

    Not being a dick but how are the election result reporting not unbiased? They’re all using the exact same API so the numbers shouldn’t deviate as long as they’re all in sync. I’m sure as shit not tuning into a network news station so sorry for the ignorance.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        13·
        17 days ago

        Thanks for the link. This has just what I was looking for, even county level. The only thing I don’t know yet is how well it updates, that was an issue in the past between different interfaces and their refreshing. But that was a different internet too.

      • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
        4·
        17 days ago

        Lol why wouldn’t they just show both years on this demographic? What’s the point of have the api for the live streaming data in the text but not in the graphic? To quote the retired NoSho league MVP Shoarsie, “Sodumb.”

        Edit: OH FUUUUUUUUUUUCK ^IM ^THE ^ONE ^WHO ^IS ^SODUMB, ^I ^SEE ^IT ^NOW

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        418·
        17 days ago

        Good lord that was midleading for a second.

        If you click a state, you can see the states individual results. In my case Ohio. So even though the counting hasn’t started, I could see Kamala Harris, and 3 independant nominees. It did NOT show trump.

        I was thinking “wait, is he somehow disqualified from running in Ohio??? Is that why he’s been pissy about Ohio??? You’d think this would have been well talked about news!!!”

        Nope. None of that. There’d just a push button expanding page. Why would you use an expanding page when there’s only 5 items on the list??? And if you ARE going to cut off one candidate in the expanding list, why not one of the three independants who may as well all be named “Why bother???”.

        But then you expant the list, and trump is number 5 in the presidential race in Ohio…with all 5 sitting at 0%.

        Of note, Kamala is #2.

        • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
          291·
          17 days ago

          I read this and was like “10 bucks says it’s just alphabetical” and, lo and behold, it’s just alphabetical. How is that not the obvious answer?

          They haven’t even started counting yet.

          You need to take a fucking chill pill, my man.

  • atempuser23@lemmy.world
    332·
    17 days ago

    No. That isn’t how elections work. Only once polling places close will the totals begin and only on a state by state basis will the totally tally’s be known.

    Your going to have to wait about a week to know.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.world
      15·
      17 days ago

      Won’t stop Trump from declaring victory at noon, and have his shoving some hack, crayon transition plan at any doting media outlets that will take them, because if he can get even the most ridiculous challenge to the SCOTUS, that’s the ball game. They’ve grown far bolder at flexing their power for the wealth class than even 2000.

      The question will be how much the media indulges his clear, intentional deception as the “candidate claims victory, stay tuned for further details.”

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        16 days ago

        Nothing ever stops him from making a fool of himself. We’d all be a lot better off if everyone ignored him. We would have avoided 2016 entirely if news channels had treated him like the joke he is, instead of pouncing on his every word.

      • atempuser23@lemmy.world
        1·
        17 days ago

        In terms of unbiased and factual numbers about the electoral college that isn’t part of the reporting. I like the minute to minute reporting as much as most other people. It’s just not relevant for the process.

  • SGforce@lemmy.ca
    20·
    17 days ago

    Consider the UK’s BBC and the guardian. They do it well and the perspective is just a little outside the American bubble. Used them and their live threads the past two elections.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      17 days ago

      I’d recommend video streams from BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 all in the UK. Channel 4 is partnering with CNN for data and shared stories, and their UK election coverage earlier this year was well regarded. TV news in the UK has to be impartial by law so they will not take a side in the election. They will however voice opinions from both sides.

      Having said that though all coverage will endlessly speculate all night on what ever result means because that’s the nature of elections and filling air time.

      Regarding the Guardian, that is not regulated but it is a good quality broadsheet. It is left leaning and effectively supports Harris but it’s coverage will still be good quality and not as partisan in the style of US media. But expect it to be biased somehwta in Harris’ favour.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      32·
      17 days ago

      “Welcome back to the BBC…”

      proceed with 7 minutes of on-air staring at the camera in silence as intense looping breaking news music plays. Then the camera just starts drifting around the studio showing the floor, and ceiling. All while the anchorwoman remains still, silent, and emotionally dead inside.

      If you don’t know what I’m referencing, just watch any youtube video called something like “news fails compilation”.

      They’ll just be 30 minute videos, with 7 minutes being one continuous moment as I’ve described. It’s so hard to watch because it just KEEEEPS ON GOOOOIIIIING!!!

      • SGforce@lemmy.ca
        1·
        17 days ago

        You should have seen how bad that kind of stuff was when satellite TV was new. Channels would broadcast straight out into the airwaves and not bother to cut the feed. There’s some old fox news clips for example of the guy losing his shit when he kept flubbing his lines. Can’t remember his name.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          3·
          17 days ago

          Uhhhhhh…are you talking about the Bill O Reiley outburst about Sting? Then he’s yelling at the teleprompter guy, because he’s an idiot who works in television who doesn’t know the phrase “play us out”?

          Because that had nothing to do with Fox News…or Satalite broadcasts. Those were supposed to be pretaped bumpers for the closing segment of Entertainment Tonight. But he goes off on a hissy fit, and then starts yelling “THIS THING SUCKS! IT SUCKS!!! PLAY US OUT!!! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??? FUCK IT!!! WE’LL DO IT LIVE!!! I’LL WRITE IT, YOU SHOOT IT!!! FUCKING THING SUCKS!!!”

          This was the 90s, before Bill O’Reiley was a Fox News talking head.

          Unless you’re talking about something else. Which could be the case.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    6·
    17 days ago

    GroundNews does breakdowns of the range of treatments of the same events being reported on throughout the various major news companies across the political spectrum

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    4·
    17 days ago

    You can look up some exit polls but they might also not be fully accurate but give a good picture of what’ll happen. The only accurate way to get the result is to wait for the electoral committee to cunt the vote, especially in an election this tiiiiiiigtt.

  • Vraylle@fedia.io
    3·
    17 days ago

    I’ll probably be watching Breaking Points on Youtube. The hosts aren’t unbiased, but they don’t pretend to not be and provide a good balance overall.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    29·
    17 days ago

    Moſt pleıſiz ƿil hæv tcru̇ſtƿoṙðı polıŋ deıtė. Ivin FOX du̇z’n meſ ƿið ð rizu̇ltſ nuıt v ſinſ it’z kuındė haṙd t dinuı rıælitı haṙd inu̇f t ovṙcædo ð luıv nu̇mbṙz.

    spoiler

    Most places will have trustworthy polling data. Even FOX doesn’t mess with the results night of since it’s kinda hard to deny reality hard enough to overshadow the live numbers.