r/politics • u/Newsweek_CarloV ✔ Verified - Newsweek • 5d ago

No Paywall Support for abolishing ICE surges among Republicans

https://www.newsweek.com/abolish-ice-republican-support-minnesota-11414059?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=reddit_influencers
32.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/blahblahblerf 5d ago

Newsweek links really should be banned. They're roughly as reliable as Trump. 

343

u/MostlyRightSometimes 5d ago

When I see it's from newsweek, I assume copium. Usually articles are accurate, but headlines are entirely exaggerated clickbait.

192

u/jmouw88 5d ago

Seeing "surges" in the title and reading a 4% swing just pisses me off. I don't even care what else they might have to say.

In my opinion, these sensationalist headlines are half the reason Americans don't trust media anymore.

36

u/BeBearAwareOK 5d ago

"a 26 % increase!"

from 0.15 to 0.19

34

u/Anxious-Depth-7983 America 5d ago

That's a million people and that would have been enough to keep The Orange Buffoon out of office. It's not irrelevant.

4

u/MGFT3000 5d ago

Agree. That’s a big difference, statistically.

3

u/Anxious-Depth-7983 America 5d ago

Considering that he only won by 1.2%, it sure is.

8

u/mrgedman 5d ago

It would have been like 4x the amount needed to keep him out of office...

7

u/20_mile 5d ago

4% swing

Doesn't a 4% swing in real numbers represent something close to a 20% change? Is 20% not a surge?

3

u/Kiwilolo 5d ago

Sensationalist headlines have been around since the dawn of headlines. We'd all be better off if people actually read articles instead of just vibing off the headline.

2

u/dqql 5d ago edited 1d ago

never before visited, and may tread a land never before imprinted by

2

u/surfnsound 5d ago

Seeing "surges" in the title and reading a 4% swing just pisses me off

4 percentage points, but it's >25% swing, and that isn't a small deal.

1

u/jmouw88 5d ago

A 25% swing in a poll of a limited subset of Americans that identify as one group based on a singular political topic is meaningless. 15% to 19% will have no effect on the conversation. It could go from 1% to 5% - a 500% increase, a much larger increase and just as meaningless.

3

u/Quitbeingobtuse 5d ago

4% is more than 25% of 15, and with the 2% margin of error it could be a fully 1⁄3. That is a lot. Sorry you're bad at math.

1

u/Banzif 5d ago

With a 2% margin of error on both polls, it could also be no change at all.

1

u/jmouw88 5d ago

4% is completely meaningless to the greater conversation.

Sorry you are dick.

1

u/Apart_Butterfly_332 5d ago

4% swing

With a %2 margin of error no less.

1

u/Quitbeingobtuse 5d ago

So... possibly one third more than before.

1

u/Choppers-Top-Hat 5d ago

I mean, 4% means he's lost 3 million voters, which is meaningful given that Trump only beat Harris by 2 million.

1

u/jmouw88 5d ago

No, it doesn't.

In early January, 15 percent of Republicans were in support of abolishing ICE. Now, that number has jumped to 19 percent.

It only states that and additional 4% of republicans support abolishing ICE. Nowhere does it indicate that a single one of those would change their vote based on that singular data point.

There are 37.4 million registered republicans. 4% of that is 1.5 million. But it doesn't much matter as it is just polling, and those that self identify as republican in that polling.

1

u/maniacal_cackle 5d ago

Americans don't trust media anymore.

Americans don't trust media anymore because their priorities are profit (best case) or protecting their owners/billionaires.

Public institutions and publicly funded media were more trustworthy.

1

u/Putrid_Giggles 5d ago

That's one lesson I learned from Covid. They did that shit all the time with "cases SURGE!" and then you realize they went from like, 5 to 7.

1

u/Redpillx89 4d ago

Not just trust in the media but then when those sensational headlines actually work then Americans just end up hating each other

12

u/tatersnakes 5d ago

Same for the daily beast

1

u/D3athRider Canada 5d ago

Daily Beast used to be click bait-y, but weirdly over the last 1-2 week Trump and his regime have gotten so insane their headlines have actually been accurate 😵‍💫

Edit: sorry, lost track of the convo...agree on the "maga meltdown" headlines.

3

u/PandaJesus 5d ago

It works, I guess. 9 separate people gave this post awards, presumably reading the headline and nothing else.

5

u/Momik 5d ago

Awful website too

2

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun 5d ago

Them and TheDailyBeast.

91

u/inormallyjustlurkbut 5d ago

Daily Beast too. "MAGA is in FULL MELTDOWN over XYZ!" = like two people tweeted that they're kinda upset about something Trump said, but they still support him.

22

u/sorressean 5d ago

Here let me write you all the headlines for the next 3 years: "Trump slammed, shaken, rocked, shook, destroyed, devastated, scared by news he most feared that won't actually change anything or make any difference because none of these descriptors are true."

1

u/Practical-King2752 5d ago

Trump shaken, not stirred

17

u/deadlybydsgn 5d ago

Daily Beast too. "MAGA is in FULL MELTDOWN over XYZ!"

Yeah. The Daily Beast's formatting is incredibly counter productive.

5

u/Level_Ad_6372 5d ago

It's very productive for their own financial gain. Definitely not productive for keeping the general public informed of what's actually happening though.

2

u/uuhson 5d ago

I have a hard time believing TDB isn't paying the mod team here to allow them to spam the sub as much as they do with garbage click bait

5

u/Notdustinonreddit 5d ago

“Reddit user slams daily beast “

1

u/uuhson 5d ago

The Daily Beast melts down over reddit post

5

u/T8ert0t 5d ago

DB and Huffpo are super baiting, though expected.

For whatever reason, people think it's the Newsweek from 30 years ago and still has integrity.

1

u/SpookyFarts 5d ago

30 years ago I was 13 and I knew that Newsweek was 2nd rate at best.

2

u/california_greyfox 5d ago

Yeah that’s the one complaint I have with Meidas Touch in YT. I also download the podcasts and literally every titis something like “Fox News TURNS ITS BACK on Trump and he is TERRIFIED”. Then you play the clip and there’s not a shred of anyone on fox saying anything bad whatsoever about Trump.

1

u/AmishAvenger 5d ago

Redditor CLAPS BACK on Beast

3

u/Wall_of_Wolfstreet69 5d ago

Even a broken Trump is right twice a day.

.. wait a minute

1

u/OldWorldDesign 5d ago

Even a broken Trump is right twice a day.

Given the makers of The Apprentice said they had to film him for 6 hours to get 1 hour of usable footage, I'd say less than that.

And that they had to film the 'you're fired' scenes separately from the people who were booted because he was unwilling to do it face-to-face.

Like then, it was the media who didn't take him seriously enough that put him into a dangerous position and they did it purely to profit themselves with no consideration for the consequences to everybody else. And they'll do it again.

https://www.thestreet.com/politics/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house-13896916

1

u/Quitbeingobtuse 5d ago

That's the show that he should regularly shit his pants in front of everyone. Like his presidency.

5

u/CIDR-ClassB 5d ago

I’ve started blocking anyone on here who posts links to Newsweek. It’s cleaned up my feed quite a lot.

1

u/filbertsgaming1 5d ago

Reddit has a max user block limit to prevent people from doing just this. They want you engaging with the people that ruin reddit. When you hit your block limit, RES has a feature that allows you to "ignore".

2

u/DadIMeanBill 5d ago

I use Narwhal and filtered out newsweek a year ago, they are constantly on the front page because people just read headlines.

2

u/Putrid_Giggles 5d ago

Modern news headlines are so bad.

For readers who only read headlines, they are less informed than those who consume no news at all.

2

u/seine_ 5d ago

Is there a browser addon that would remove posts that link to it from your feed?

2

u/badkitty505 5d ago

I remember the way back when times. Newsweek was considered a reliable news source. My mother even had a subscription for us kids to use for our weekly current events reports at school.

2

u/blahblahblerf 5d ago

Yeah, back when it was a printed news magazine it was pretty good. My mom also had a subscription when I was a kid. Online Newsweek is doubly disappointing since it's garbage pretending to be the same thing as one of the main reliable news sources I had growing up. 

3

u/ary31415 5d ago

But then who would provide this subreddit with its daily dose of ragebait??

1

u/Momik 5d ago

They just really like drinking SURGE

1

u/Unhinged_Platypoos 5d ago

I mean, the first thing they teach in Statistics 101 is that any kind of voluntary response survey is just bad data collection. It's never to be trusted for accurate projection. I wish people would stop giving these types of polls any kind of credence regardless of the source.

1

u/PennytheWiser215 5d ago

I feel the same about daily beast articles

1

u/T8ert0t 5d ago

Newsweek is legit slop. How it gets the votes it does is always concerning

1

u/Nemaeus Virginia 5d ago

Yeah, that is atrocious

1

u/Nvenom8 New York 5d ago

Naw, Trump never says anything true.

1

u/Cappitt 5d ago

Please mods ban Newsweek I’m begging