The American Federation of Teachers said candidates publicly endorsed by conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty and the 1776 Project lost about 70% of their races nationally in elections this week — a tally those groups dispute.
…
The 1776 Project said 58% of the candidates they endorsed — many of them in conservative areas — won. Moms for Liberty, which works in largely suburban swing districts, said 40% of its endorsed candidates won.
Wtf kind of jankity-ass reporting is that? Person A says it’s raining, Person B says it’s not. Stick your fucking head out the window, find out the truth, and report that!
Its hundreds/thousands of races across the country, all of them local seats.
It is entirely likely that there is not complete public reporting of all the races yet, so they are relying on 3rd party info as it “should” be more accurate due to direct knowledge of outcomes.
I see your point, but they’re not even relying on 3rd party data. They’re relying on 3rd party press releases. At the bare minimum, AP should have asked for the data behind each of those claims and cross referenced them against each other. Otherwise what value is this “journalism” adding here? I can go read a Mom’s for Liberty press release if I wanted to hear unfact-checked bullshit.
I agree overall, and if I’m being cynical, media likes to portray a “fight” between different groups, that some conflict exists, even when there isnt any.
Instead of reporting the literal facts, they often write a narrative of battling groups, which is bolstered by differing statistics.
This undoubtedly gets way more clicks then otherwise, but once you start looking for it it’s everywhere.
…
Wtf kind of jankity-ass reporting is that? Person A says it’s raining, Person B says it’s not. Stick your fucking head out the window, find out the truth, and report that!
Its hundreds/thousands of races across the country, all of them local seats.
It is entirely likely that there is not complete public reporting of all the races yet, so they are relying on 3rd party info as it “should” be more accurate due to direct knowledge of outcomes.
I see your point, but they’re not even relying on 3rd party data. They’re relying on 3rd party press releases. At the bare minimum, AP should have asked for the data behind each of those claims and cross referenced them against each other. Otherwise what value is this “journalism” adding here? I can go read a Mom’s for Liberty press release if I wanted to hear unfact-checked bullshit.
I agree overall, and if I’m being cynical, media likes to portray a “fight” between different groups, that some conflict exists, even when there isnt any.
Instead of reporting the literal facts, they often write a narrative of battling groups, which is bolstered by differing statistics.
This undoubtedly gets way more clicks then otherwise, but once you start looking for it it’s everywhere.
A lot of the races won by 1776, and the MfL were against each other. So there was a lot of swapping seats.