Hillary & Google Manipulated MILLIONS of Hillary's Votes

[Jim]

 
Dr. Robert Epstein is a Clinton Supporter. But an Honest man first.

Dr. Robert Epstein Counters Hillary's 'Debunked' Claim of His Study Following Her Response to Trump





Dr. Robert Epstein, who earned his Ph.D in psychology from Harvard University, has taken Clinton to task for the “blatant lies” she told about him and his study, which claims that Google shows “pro-Hillary bias” during the 2016 election.

Epstein testified in July, in front of Congress, that he isn't a Republican or conservative.


https://www.mrctv.org/blog/dr-robert-epstein-counters-hillarys-debunked-claim-his-study-following-her-response-trump

[Truman62]

Nobody cares...

[wvit1001]

MRC does not actually produce original content, but rather links to their other websites such as MRCTV, Newsbusters and CNS News. These sources frequently utilize strong loaded emotional language such as this: The Embarrassing Questions NBC’s Moderators NEVER Asked. Articles are typically properly sourced, however they do use the Questionable CNS News as a primary source. CNS News has failed numerous fact checks by IFCN fact checkers.

The primary purpose of MRC is to expose liberal bias in the media. They often claim there is a conspiracy in the media to promote liberalism, while suppressing conservatism. Journalist Brian Montopoli of Columbia Journalism Review in 2005 labeled MRC “just one part of a wider movement by the far right to demonize corporate media”, rather than “make the media better.” Essentially, MRC is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.

When it comes to science, MRC advocates for climate denialism as well as creationism.

A factual search reveals that both Newsbusters and CNS News have failed numerous fact checks.

Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience as well as a poor fact check record by their primary sources. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 7/21/2019)

[wvit1001]

Why the president and the right have latched onto a flimsy study about Google manipulating votes.


On Monday, when President Donald Trump tweeted about a report showing that Google had “manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes” in favor of Hillary Clinton, it was obvious what had put the idea in his head.

That morning, Fox News’ sister network Fox Business had discussed the July Senate testimony of a psychologist named Robert Epstein, who said that “Google’s search algorithm likely impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton.” Though the clip of Epstein’s testimony was a month old, Trump’s tweets inspired conservative media outlets to jump on the story—and the rest of the media to point out just how bogus Epstein’s claims are.

Epstein is the organization’s only staff member, according to the AIBR website. Epstein is the co-author of a study published by his employer, only the summary of which is available, that claims that biases in Google’s search results may have tilted millions of undecided voters to vote for Clinton in the 2016 election. That was the study Epstein described in his Senate committee testimony, where he didn’t mention that his huge claim is based on monitoring the search results of just 21 undecided voters out of 95 voters for a 2017 white paper. In his submitted testimony, Epstein did provide seven pages of citations—but all of them are papers or op-eds he wrote or co-wrote himself.

.
.
.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/robert-epstein-google-bias-conservative-bogus-trump.html

[Truman62]

Jim is fooled by fake news again...

[Local5th]

Epstein is the organization’s only staff member, according to the AIBR website. Epstein is the co-author of a study published by his employer, only the summary of which is available, that claims that biases in Google’s search results may have tilted millions of undecided voters to vote for Clinton in the 2016 election. That was the study Epstein described in his Senate committee testimony, where he didn’t mention that his huge claim is based on monitoring the search results of just 21 undecided voters out of 95 voters for a 2017 white paper. In his submitted testimony, Epstein did provide seven pages of citations—but all of them are papers or op-eds he wrote or co-wrote himself.



Epstine most likely offered more proof than those who claim Russia tilted Americans to vote for Trump.

[wvit1001]

most likely?    hahahahahahhahhaaa.   you're such a goofy old tea partiers local.

[chuck_curtis]

Putin, eat your heart out!

[wvit1001]

More of your goofy end times stuff?