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?
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.
This is all I need, Thanks for not being a dick.
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
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.
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.
PBS will have live coverage. Also available streaming.
Nice to point out a public service, as their less likely to act in favor of whatever gets a sponsorship (even though they still do sponsors/ads to a degree)
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.
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.”
Likely longer as the “stop the steal” nonsense lawsuits start rolling through
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.
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.
“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!!!
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.
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.
AP map https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/
Besides pbs Probably ProPublica
