If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Nate Silver's opinion of opinion journalism is rankling opinion journalists. Yeah well, that's just, like, your statistics, man   (bbc.com) divider line 102
    More: Obvious, High IQ, open society, New Republic, FiveThirtyEight  
•       •       •

2590 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2014 at 10:48 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-20 09:54:53 AM

Perhaps if journalists were doing their job and investigating and reporting fact, as opposed to reading off press releases or doing baseless speculation based on wild rumor and wild speculation on the thinnest of questioning, we wouldn't have this crisis of faith...



lh5.googleusercontent.com

Him and me, both...
 
2014-03-20 09:58:36 AM
"Instead, he chose to spend months preaching about the superiority of his model while attacking traditional journalism - and more specifically, punditry - as if it were worthless and inferior."

If the shoe fits, man.  If the shoe fits.
 
2014-03-20 10:31:49 AM

Marcus Aurelius: "Instead, he chose to spend months preaching about the superiority of his model while attacking traditional journalism - and more specifically, punditry - as if it were worthless and inferior."

If the shoe fits, man.  If the shoe fits.


When has Nate ever preached abou tthe superiority of his models?  He ALWAYS says there's room for improvement.
 
2014-03-20 10:36:15 AM

Marcus Aurelius: "Instead, he chose to spend months preaching about the superiority of his model while attacking traditional journalism - and more specifically, punditry - as if it were worthless and inferior."

If the shoe fits, man.  If the shoe fits.

The thing is, I don't recall him attacking traditional journalism. If anything, Silver understands both the strengths and limitations of statistical analysis and takes a reasoned approach to the types of conclusions that can be drawn from the data he gathers. Meanwhile, the punditry, who do almost nothing but criticize others 24 hours a day, sits aghast that someone has the audacity to call them out on their bullshiat.
 
2014-03-20 10:52:50 AM
Most "opinion" columnists are paid directly by lobbying organizations or sometimes directly by political parties, and are little more than press release machines
 
2014-03-20 10:53:23 AM
The problem with statisticals is that they don't take vibrations into account.

media.salon.com
 
2014-03-20 10:53:24 AM

exick: The thing is, I don't recall him attacking traditional journalism.


He hasn't, in fact, he's noted the fact that without primary data collection, he can't exist. He's been very open about the fact that he's not a journalist, he's an analyst.

He's not attacking journalism, he's attacking punditry. Namely the fact that people like Kristol, Krauthammer, Matthews, etc. can keep on spouting their opinions and predictions, be wildly wrong almost every time, and still be taken seriously.
 
2014-03-20 10:53:33 AM
If the "pundits" would present actual evidence that being a "pundit" makes your predictions any more accurate than those of a dart-throwing monkey, maybe people wouldn't see this outcry as nothing more than self-interested whining by people who prattle for a living.
 
2014-03-20 10:53:53 AM

exick: Marcus Aurelius: "Instead, he chose to spend months preaching about the superiority of his model while attacking traditional journalism - and more specifically, punditry - as if it were worthless and inferior."

If the shoe fits, man.  If the shoe fits.
The thing is, I don't recall him attacking traditional journalism. If anything, Silver understands both the strengths and limitations of statistical analysis and takes a reasoned approach to the types of conclusions that can be drawn from the data he gathers. Meanwhile, the punditry, who do almost nothing but criticize others 24 hours a day, sits aghast that someone has the audacity to call them out on their bullshiat.


In fact, he specifically counterpointed against the "once great journalistic" entities.

He's not condemning actual journalism, which should be obvious to anyone who isn't nursing a guilty conscience that they are part of the problem.
 
2014-03-20 10:54:13 AM
I don't care if Nate Silver is really an AI project from IBM as long as I can continue to rely on his election analysis.

I've already got plenty of nerds to drink beer with.
 
2014-03-20 10:54:57 AM

Marcus Aurelius: "Instead, he chose to spend months preaching about the superiority of his model while attacking traditional journalism - and more specifically, punditry - as if it were worthless and inferior."

If the shoe fits, man.  If the shoe fits.


Nate's implication is that it doesn't have to be, but I get the sense that the same foibles the produce the "journalism" and "punditry" Nate's less than thrilled with produce "Why is Nate Silver picking on us?" stories.

Hell, if Nate ran a story about journalism getting better, they'd probably start a series of pieces on "Here's How Bad Journalism and Punditry Suck". News 101 - when the other guy's getting headlines, hitch your wagon to his.

// "Journalists Hate This One Weird Trick Nate Silver Knows About Benghazi"
 
2014-03-20 10:55:11 AM
The jimmies, they are a-rustled!

The punditry screaming about being "attacked" by Nate Silver simply lends greater credence to Mr. Silver.
 
2014-03-20 10:57:15 AM
Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?
 
2014-03-20 10:58:33 AM

Cletus C.: Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?


I don't get it.
 
2014-03-20 10:58:38 AM
"And now let's check our Twitter feeds for updates..."
 
2014-03-20 10:59:58 AM
Is this a nominal moment in American journalism?

Is the foxification of "news" being shown for what it is and will that lead to people demanding better news sources...


Bwahahaha I couldn't type the whole thing, hahaha


Oh boy, what's on teen mom 2 this week?
 
2014-03-20 11:00:15 AM
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491
 
2014-03-20 11:01:52 AM
Yeah, I love all the opinion pieces this morning about how 538's fallen from grace or whatever the hell.

You want to have one over on Nate? Beat him on Election Night or shut up.
 
2014-03-20 11:03:25 AM
Cold hard facts and data vs. the current Punxsutawney Phil method of "journalism?"

Go Nate Dogg, Go
 
2014-03-20 11:03:45 AM

Cletus C.: Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?


If Silver's analysis skills were as good as he boasts then he'd win that $1 billion and if he doesn't then it shows the flaw of his system and he should stay the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of politics.
 
2014-03-20 11:05:06 AM
He's right.

He isn't making an argument that we can use statistics to tell us what our moral obligations and beliefs are.  He's making the argument that opinion and bias are getting in the way of forming more informed opinions about things like the cost/benefit of the ACA, a budget, a trade deal, a new oil pipeline, etc...

He is saying the "If THEIR TYPE is for it, I'm against it!" journalism hurts our country... and he's right.

I know he named off some print sources that are guilty of this but the mainstream media is guilty of this even more.  Fox is undoubtedly the worst, but others are guilty also.
 
2014-03-20 11:05:26 AM

Gosling: Yeah, I love all the opinion pieces this morning about how 538's fallen from grace or whatever the hell.

You want to have one over on Nate? Beat him on Election Night or shut up.


Yeah, that too. A track record of accuracy goes a long ways towards convincing people your predictions are actually, you know, accurate.
 
2014-03-20 11:06:40 AM
Oh noes, the wittwe pundits' feewings are hurt!

If your opinion isn't backed up by facts, it's basically worthless. People whose job is to write about worthless things don't like being reminded of that fact.
 
2014-03-20 11:08:36 AM

Gosling: Yeah, I love all the opinion pieces this morning about how 538's fallen from grace or whatever the hell.

You want to have one over on Nate? Beat him on Election Night Use statistics or shut up.


Nate is constantly challenging - BEGGING - people to beat him at his own game. As was pointed out above, he realizes he's not a primary source, and thanks the primary sources he's able to use for what they enable him to do.

He's a numbers guy. When a numbers guy says "Lou Gehrig is better than Babe Ruth, because [stats]," your only options are to challenge the numbers guy's definition of "better" (you forgot to include [this other stat]), or challenge his numbers (he omitted 3 of Ruth's seasons).

And, like a good scientist, if proven "wrong", Nate would be OVERJOYED. He'd probably offer the person a job.
 
2014-03-20 11:08:47 AM
All the stenographers and gasbags are clutching their pearls at someone with actual information and metrics? Imagine that.
 
2014-03-20 11:10:30 AM
fedgeno.com
/really, I'm the first to do this?
 
2014-03-20 11:11:10 AM
He doesn't attack journalism. He ridicules the system of punditry, which is not journalism, but wants to be considered journalism. He ridicules a system where people write and write without anything backing up their assertions yet lose no credibility because they're simply cheerleaders, not journalists.

Cheerleaders are paid to cheer for the football team and liven up the crowd even when the team is down 63-0. They exist to deny the reality of the facts around them. So do most of the pundits - on all sides - when they stake their claim not based on the validity of the position but by the side that holds it, ignore inconvenient facts, and when they can no longer ignore them, simply change the narrative as if nothing ever happened.

Look at Rubin from the Post around the 2012 election. She spent months writing about Romney the political dynamo, and how perfect his campaign was...until he lost, when suddenly he was the most incompetent man alive. Or Martin on Fox News who predicted the Romney landslide, and after President Obama won by a margin greater than Romney's predicted "landslide", called it a narrow squeaker. Sure, some people laughed at him, but did he lose any credibility? Not really. Will, Krauthammer, whomever you list, can be shown to be consistently wrong in their predictions, but their columns still run in major newspapers.

I don't think Silver, for example, would criticize, say, Limbaugh the same way. He admits to being a cheerleader and entertainer. He isn't putting himself forward as a "serious journalist". That's Silver's issue, not simply traditional journalism.
 
2014-03-20 11:12:46 AM

Muta: Cletus C.: Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?

If Silver's analysis skills were as good as he boasts then he'd win that $1 billion and if he doesn't then it shows the flaw of his system and he should stay the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of politics.


7.5 out of 10 - Could do better with more effort. Bonus points were added for avoiding swear words.
 
2014-03-20 11:15:48 AM
Rocking the S.S. Bullshiat is what got him tossed out of the NYT.
 
2014-03-20 11:17:20 AM

Wooly Bully: If the "pundits" would present actual evidence that being a "pundit" makes your predictions any more accurate than those of a dart-throwing monkey, maybe people wouldn't see this outcry as nothing more than self-interested whining by people who prattle for a living.


Actually, a monkey making predictions by throwing darts would be much more entertaining and informative than any pundit show.
/CNN, We're giving you free ideas here...
 
2014-03-20 11:17:38 AM

Muta: Cletus C.: Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?

If Silver's analysis skills were as good as he boasts then he'd win that $1 billion and if he doesn't then it shows the flaw of his system and he should stay the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of politics.


You obviously haven't red his articles on the matter.

And "flaw of his system?"  Are you farking serious?  He's ALWAYS talking about uncertainty.  He's ALWAYS talking about the imperfection of his models.  Apparently you're woefully uninformed about the science behind statistics.
 
2014-03-20 11:17:50 AM
Can you quantify whether gay marriage should be legal?

Potential (realistic) negative impact of legalizing gay marriage: 0

Benefits: Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be able to form legally recognized unions and not be discriminated when it comes to visitation rights, inheritance, taxes
 
2014-03-20 11:19:36 AM
Fark em.  There is nothing more useless than a media opinion writer.  The farks don't even advocate anything, they just try to steer the narrative in a way that ingratiates their egos.  Fark every single one.

That said, Silver's hiring of Roger Pielke Jr.  is disturbing. If he turns 538 into a denier site, I'll quit reading him as well.
 
2014-03-20 11:19:39 AM

Marcus Aurelius: "Instead, he chose to spend months preaching about the superiority of his model while attacking traditional journalism - and more specifically, punditry - as if it were worthless and inferior."

If the shoe fits, man.  If the shoe fits.


But pundits ARE worthless and inferior.

Take Dick Morris, for example.  Please. take Dick.
 
2014-03-20 11:20:44 AM

kbronsito: Can you quantify whether gay marriage should be legal?

Potential (realistic) negative impact of legalizing gay marriage: 0

Benefits: Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be able to form legally recognized unions and not be discriminated when it comes to visitation rights, inheritance, taxes


Yes, but what about our morals and values?  What does it say about us as a culture and a society?   And what about the children?

I'm concerned that gay marriage could be bad... for gays.
 
2014-03-20 11:26:51 AM

Rapmaster2000: The problem with statisticals is that they don't take vibrations into account.

[media.salon.com image 660x440]



wow!    Peggy must have had an intense 2012!
 
2014-03-20 11:26:57 AM
Punditry has hit a wall mainly because always-wrong pundits never get fired.
 
2014-03-20 11:30:26 AM

Richard C Stanford: Wooly Bully: If the "pundits" would present actual evidence that being a "pundit" makes your predictions any more accurate than those of a dart-throwing monkey, maybe people wouldn't see this outcry as nothing more than self-interested whining by people who prattle for a living.

Actually, a monkey making predictions by throwing darts would be much more entertaining and informative than any pundit show.
/CNN, We're giving you free ideas here...


Courtesy of Nate Silver: "A variety of studies on the predictions made by McLaughlin Group panelists, for instance, find that they are no more accurate than random guesses."
 
2014-03-20 11:30:37 AM
I think Nate Silver gives pundits a bad rap. Pundits are setimes more than just a modern-day astrologer with a well starched shirt and a bowtie.

Some of them are also charlatans!
 
2014-03-20 11:32:40 AM

Cletus C.: Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?


Nate Silver successfully predicted you would ask this question: We Have a 1 in 7,419,071,319 Chance of Winning Buffett's Billion
 
2014-03-20 11:38:38 AM
Like, even good pundits like the McLaughlin group can't manage accurate predictions.  24 hour news pundits fall more into the opposite-of-reality realm.
 
2014-03-20 11:40:52 AM
Silver destroys the the MSM Media's "Horse Race"narrative, which they rely on to drive viewers.  If viewers have a good idea of who is going to win, they won't spend time watching the MSM shows to find out "who is leading and who is not, what does this minor action mean for the race?"  I watched ABC news coverage on election night, and it was all, "Golly, we just don't know who is going to win, it's sooo close, you better stick with us to find out."

Fox news, OTOH, relies on the method of telling it's viewers what they want to hear, so all you saw on Fox news was "Romney's definitely going to win, but that MSM won't tell you because they're a bunch of Liberals."  It was so gratifying to talk to my conservative Fox news only watching family members after the election after I correctly predicted the outcome of the election based on Silver/Wang's work.  They bought into the Fox narrative so completely that for a while they actually doubted that Fox was a legitimate source for news and was not just telling them what they wanted to hear.  They got over it.  No doubt, if Silver's model predicts a Republican win next time, the Fox news folks will embrace Silver just as strongly as they diss him now.
 
2014-03-20 11:41:44 AM
I just checked in
To see what condition
The statistician was in.
 
2014-03-20 11:44:22 AM

JolobinSmokin: Is this a nominal moment in American journalism?

Is the foxification of "news" being shown for what it is and will that lead to people demanding better news sources...


Bwahahaha I couldn't type the whole thing, hahaha


Oh boy, what's on teen mom 2 this week?


Yellow journalism existed long before Fox News came around.
 
2014-03-20 11:48:57 AM

Linux_Yes: Rapmaster2000: The problem with statisticals is that they don't take vibrations into account.

[media.salon.com image 660x440]

wow!    Peggy must have had an intense 2012!


I think she forgot to account for the fact that Romney wasn't able to buy everyone a new vibrator.
 
2014-03-20 11:53:38 AM
I love the guy's arguments:  "There are certain things numbers can't explain"....he forgets to add the word:  "Yet"

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
 
2014-03-20 11:55:51 AM

hubiestubert: Perhaps if journalists were doing their job and investigating and reporting fact, as opposed to reading off press releases or doing baseless speculation based on wild rumor and wild speculation on the thinnest of questioning, we wouldn't have this crisis of faith...

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 400x501]

Him and me, both...


Done in one.
 
2014-03-20 12:00:12 PM
There is an excerpt in this article that pretty much explains what Silver has railed against.  A HuffPo writer is more or less complaining that PECOTA (Silver's baseball projection system) just consistently underrates the White Sox and rather than attacking the system, he attacks Silver.
 
2014-03-20 12:04:43 PM
Well some issues are by their very nature opinions (gay marriage for example) the real issue with opinion journalism is that it doesn't change any minds...people just gravitate to views they agree with rather than finding the facts and coming to their own conclusion...it's easier to have someone else form your opinion.
 
2014-03-20 12:04:58 PM

chimp_ninja: Cletus C.: Shouldn't Nate be preparing to celebrate his $1 billion-winning NCAA tournament bracket? Why bother with this nonsense?

Nate Silver successfully predicted you would ask this question: We Have a 1 in 7,419,071,319 Chance of Winning Buffett's Billion


Interesting article, but he doesn't really elaborate how he came to assign the given probabilities to the given matchups. Would have been nice to explain the methodology a bit better.

You get roughly the same number if you assume about a 67% success rate for picking winners/outcomes correctly, which is fairly typical success rate for someone with good understanding of the game in question.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report