hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 24, 2009 16:42:34 GMT -5
Sigh. You can assign motivations all you like, but the anchors aren't making the calls. The thing is, this using a non-random sample as a random sample had been going on for years and years, but 2000 was the first time it really bit them. I'm not getting into the stupid "media is biased" argument because everyone believes the world is against them. Needless to say, you've presented one of many human motivations (maybe the guy in charge wanted Bush to win and hoped calling for Gore would make Dems say "I don't need to vote? or maybe the network just wanted to be the first to call it). You're right my reason is not 100% (sue me for hyperbole), but going down the personal motivation road assumes you know: - Who made the call - Who had influence on the call - How much thought went into it - How ethical those person or people are - What effect on future voters those people think their judgement will have Eh, I'm just basing it on competence and a rather elementary error that occurs in almost every political polls I see. I know that we all tend to have selective memories at times, and I agree when you say that we all think everyone else is against us sometimes. But in this case, there was no doubt that when the anchors were calling the state for Gore at 7 or so in the evening, there was a spring in their step. There was a smile on their faces. There was joy in their hearts. Then later when it was too close to call, there was indifference in their eyes and a lost look in their expression. Then late at night, when they were calling the state for Bush, as I said before, it looked like their dogs had just died. It was so dramatic. I will try to see if there's a youtube link. But I kid you not. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 24, 2009 16:44:42 GMT -5
Sigh. You can assign motivations all you like, but the anchors aren't making the calls. The thing is, this using a non-random sample as a random sample had been going on for years and years, but 2000 was the first time it really bit them. I'm not getting into the stupid "media is biased" argument because everyone believes the world is against them. Needless to say, you've presented one of many human motivations (maybe the guy in charge wanted Bush to win and hoped calling for Gore would make Dems say "I don't need to vote? or maybe the network just wanted to be the first to call it). You're right my reason is not 100% (sue me for hyperbole), but going down the personal motivation road assumes you know: - Who made the call - Who had influence on the call - How much thought went into it - How ethical those person or people are - What effect on future voters those people think their judgement will have Eh, I'm just basing it on competence and a rather elementary error that occurs in almost every political polls I see. I know that we all tend to have selective memories at times, and I agree when you say that we all think everyone else is against us sometimes. But in this case, there was no doubt that when the anchors were calling the state for Gore at 7 or so in the evening, there was a spring in their step. There was a smile on their faces. There was joy in their hearts. Then later when it was too close to call, there was indifference in their eyes and a lost look in their expression. Then late at night, when they were calling the state for Bush, as I said before, it looked like their dogs had just died. It was so dramatic. I will try to see if there's a youtube link. But I kid you not. This is good for at least four more pages of debate. |
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Nov 24, 2009 17:46:51 GMT -5
You don't have to watch many games to believe that home teams tend to get more calls but that does not mean you can prove it by examining the statistics. There are always other variables in play. I don't doubt that fouls tend to even out over the course of a game but is that because of the refs or because teams that are fouling tend to change players and tactics? It would be better to look at block/charge calls (the most disputed category of judgment calls) over the course of a full conference season and see whether home teams got more calls. Are more technicals called on away teams and coaches? And anyway it isn't the number of team fouls that influences the outcome as much as the number of fouls on the key players on each team. Three or four calls more against Duke would not have offset the tech call on Monroe.
|
|
