The premature results appeared on NBC affiliate WRCB in Chattanooga, Tennessee, but were stored on the servers of a widely used news content management platform.
A NBC affiliate in Chattanooga, Tennessee inadvertently published what appears to be election night results. The results are published in the typical format used by mainstream news networks and display Presidential and Congressional results, the popular vote count, electoral votes, and percentage of precincts reporting in. The page was taken down soon after, but is available via the internet archive. The results of the Presidential contest name Hillary Clinton the winner with 41.7 million votes or 42% of the total. Trump, on the other hand, received 40.1 million votes or 40%. The results also gave Gary Johnson 8% while Jill Stein received 5%.
However, the posted premature results were not exclusive to NBC nor its Tennessee affiliate. The page was pulled directly from the content management platform, WorldNow.com, which is used by major networks including NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox. These media companies use the platform, also known as Frankly, to power their news content. Many news affiliates display this on their webpage, including the NBC affiliate that posted the premature results, by showing “powered by Frankly” at the bottom of their pages. The results information can still be found on an FTP server at WorldNow.com. In addition, the leaked page showing national results, another page on the WorldNow.com FTP servers appear to show the Presidential election results state by state. These results show Clinton winning in states like Texas (42%-40%), Florida (44-40%), Pennsylvania (44-40%), and South Carolina (44-39%), all of which are “battleground” states as well as must-wins for Clinton.
Do these “results” definitively show the election is rigged? There’s no denying that the presence of these premature and obviously doctored results on the server of a top, new content management platform is downright suspicious. There’s no reason for these results to be there other than their planned illegal use on Election Day. Would the well-documented collusion between the Clinton campaign and mainstream media go so far as to rig the election in such a way – by reporting doctored results prepared days in advance? The Clinton campaign has already set a precedent for such behavior. The night of the California primary, which promised a large turn-out for Bernie Sanders, the Associated Press published an image saying Clinton had “clinched” the Democratic nomination. The image was titled “secret win v2,” indicating that the image declaring Clinton the “winner” had been pre-planned and had undergone more than revision. However, in the week to come, we can only expect more evidence of shady dealings as this high stakes and high drama election finally comes to a close.
What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!
This article (NBC Local News Accidentally Posts US Election Results a Week Early, Shows a Clinton “Win”) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com
Yo,
This doesn’t show rigged elections. Working in News Media (in Scandinavia), I can confirm that it is normal for networks to have pre-made stories, especially when the story is gonna be A or B, e.g. like an election.
So to save time, and to be able to compete with competitors to be the “first” to report a story is important for viewer numbers and for advertisement income.
So, I think 2 possible scenarios here:
1. Some lazy employee or an intern or similar, did a mistake and loaded wrong section up for broadcast, or
2. It was done on purpose to influence voters one way or the other.
So, the “The page was pulled directly from the content management platform, WorldNow.com” is most likely a placeholder waiting for the official results – thus making it faster to the public once the results are out.
Further, I would also think they have a placeholder for the opposite results, e.g. called “secret win v1”.
Therefore, I think this is very little evidence for “rigged elections” and more just a noob mistake and/or intended mistake by the network in question… I think noob mistake – and I feel sorry for the noob that did it… most likely fired from the network.
f
I can buy the fact that the news agency created a pre-loaded story to prepare for any possible outcome. However it doesn’t make sense that they would include actual statistics because these will certainly be wrong.
Now where did I put my Pitchfork and torches?
The numbers can be quickly changed but you need placeholder numbers in order to properly size the graphics. If you’ve ever tried to make a graph on a website, you’ll know how important it is to have something in each cell.
what about the figures?
I agree. You make graphic in advance. There is likely a Trump graphic too. Way to jump to conclusions. I used the respect Anonymous. Now your political articles seem inflamitory and unable to look at things with any form of intelligence.
Jill Stein’s campaign is reporting they are at 5% right now today after being shown at 2% in every poll in the country for over 5 months no matter how many people dumped the Dems over Bernie and vowed to join Stein. You might want to think again about how legit these numbers are that keep getting thrown around.
normal for networks to have pre-made stories – I either work in media, but in normal way. It isn’t such pre-maid stories, or you, or the redaction can predict that an earthquake will occur? So is an election, or a natural disaster is pretty unfair to predict the result, an election is made by the people, not by the media.
BULLSHIT!!!!!
Seems there was a law passed several years ago, because of news media releasing election results before the votes had been cast throughout the country, which caused people on the West Coast to not go to the polls since the winner had already been determined. That law, pretty sure, made it illegal to report any election results prior to the close of all voting precincts in the country. This is certainly an election result given before that time and this “news” agency, and any others that do the same thing, need to be charged for this federal criminal offense.
I’m thinking of a little voter fraud going on here? ?
Hi,
I work for a news company and we’re developing a election day results page. What you see there is mocked data (test). It is necessary for tests, UI/UX review among other things. What happened here is probably some mistake by some sys admin. Don’t panic, everybody knows Trump is gonna win.
it’s not normal. if it is a template, then the voters number should look like 0000000 or xxxxxxx. In the print screen appears a fix number.
depending on the tool you use for the content editing – you sure you can put letters, it will be exact same? won’t cut leading zeroes? etc.
Keep the revelations coming!
How about it being a test run using poll data? You’d have to compare the figures with those of present polls. I am disappointed that you didn’t bother to do that prior to posting your conspiracy theory article.
The fix is in…..
Fractional voting: Results rigged to give 41% of all votes to Hillary so she seems to win by close margin regardless of landslide of votes for Trump.
https://youtu.be/GYqquA8smAM
Dump landslide my fat ass! Seems you don’t have a clue what it means to build mock-ups.
Nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV11WkWzRa4
Vote for Gary Johnson
Anyone who follows this supermarket tabloid joke deserves to rest in confusion forever. The fact that people believe your crapv is some form of real reporting is somewhere between sad and laughable. Better remain anonymous, because you are a joke.
I think somebody is trying to sensationalize the election! Advanced writing of stories have always gone on so they can get the news out fast–all they have to do is edit and alter the figures.
Once again, this story is proven to be false, because TRUMP 2K16 IS HERE.
Seriously though, anon. I used to trust you guys. Don’t tell me I have to fact check all of your articles like I do with every other media outlet.
The only reason I still read the news on your page is because I thought you would be reporting true statements. If you’re just going to put up claims with poor evidence, I might as well go to CNN or . . . Fox news.
Maybe not fox news.