A) 538 was one of the few sources that actually gave Donald Trump a decent chance, and IMHO 538 is one of the few sources that was discussing about the limitations of traditional polling. A lot of other sources were more blindly trusting of the polls.
B) The data in the link contains data that is not just about politics. Data includes such non-political topics as, say, "Where Do People Drink The Most Beer, Wine And Spirits?" to "How Americans Like Their Steak".
"Fake news" has unfortunately become a convenient euphemism that usually means the person saying it doesn't like a particular site's political stance. Fine, but what do the above type statistical sets have to do with election politics in the first place?
C) To be honest, since the data sets actually are present, a "this is fake news" sort of post seems lazy. If you have issues with 538's reporting, dive into R and report on any issues you find. Or do you think all of these datasets are fake? That's a tall claim without proof.
B) The data in the link contains data that is not just about politics. Data includes such non-political topics as, say, "Where Do People Drink The Most Beer, Wine And Spirits?" to "How Americans Like Their Steak".
"Fake news" has unfortunately become a convenient euphemism that usually means the person saying it doesn't like a particular site's political stance. Fine, but what do the above type statistical sets have to do with election politics in the first place?
C) To be honest, since the data sets actually are present, a "this is fake news" sort of post seems lazy. If you have issues with 538's reporting, dive into R and report on any issues you find. Or do you think all of these datasets are fake? That's a tall claim without proof.