Over the weekend, the WaPo’s Dana Milbank wrote an op-ed that was embraced by the White House accusing the media of treating Biden “as badly as — or worse than — Trump” using a data tool called “sentiment analysis” as his proof:

Except, using “sentiment analysis” of media articles to compare ones about Trump to ones about Biden is “complete crap,” writes data expert Nate Silver:

“It’s just totally random,” Silver tweeted.  “Lots of stories about the stock market” and “Many have nothing to do with Biden at all”:

Silver added, “What’s probably happening here is that words like ‘high’ and ‘rise’ are viewed as favorable by the algorithm, even if they’re taken completely out of context (e.g. ‘higher taxes’ or ‘stock futures rise’)”:

This is happening with the articles least favorable to Biden, too:

Heckuva job, Dana:

Silver ran one of his own articles — “exactly the sort of story that @Milbank says there should be more of” — through the algorithm to test it. . .

. . .and found that an article calling out Trump for attacking democracy only came back as “neutral”:

In other words, it’s “complete crap”: