In so far as the Times continually errored in its prediction of the election probabilities it would seem only just for the paper to compensate its readers by extending its free coverage to 60 days representing the difference between the probability and actuality of outcome on election night. In the alternative the Times could hire a professional football kicker to make an 60 yard field goal.
1
What an insulting column.
Instead of treating its readers with a thoughful, detailed analysis we are are treated with inane euphemisms about "goal posts."
Which is unlike what we will ever see from Nate Silver and his staff at 538 who never shy away from explaining its polling methodology in detail to their readers.
Because, Nate Silver, unlike the the New York Times staff, treats its readers as adults who have more than a sixth grade education.
Instead of treating its readers with a thoughful, detailed analysis we are are treated with inane euphemisms about "goal posts."
Which is unlike what we will ever see from Nate Silver and his staff at 538 who never shy away from explaining its polling methodology in detail to their readers.
Because, Nate Silver, unlike the the New York Times staff, treats its readers as adults who have more than a sixth grade education.
3
I wish the Public Editor had used this space instead to examine the way economics of polling, how much campaigns spend on it, who are the pollsters making most of the money from it, and how it provides filler for the media's 7x24 news cycle.
1
Beats me why we even have a presidential election on November 8. The polls, not the ones where we actually vote, say HRC or DT is ahead. Just make whomever the polls say is ahead the winner and be done with it.
A new version of the country classic “Mamas, don’t let your sons grow up to be cowboys.” “Mamas, have your sons when they grow up, be pollsters.”
A new version of the country classic “Mamas, don’t let your sons grow up to be cowboys.” “Mamas, have your sons when they grow up, be pollsters.”
Ms Spayd tells us that this is the sort of question that Times readers are asking her:
"At this point, what polls or numbers in The Upshot should readers most focus on? Are forecasts in a handful of states like Florida and Pennsylvania more important than the overall number?"
I'm guessing that the truth is that almost no one asks the public editor silly questions like this. Times readers are more astute.
Ms Spayd, this sort of mindless shilling is an affront to past public editors, as well as Times readers.
"At this point, what polls or numbers in The Upshot should readers most focus on? Are forecasts in a handful of states like Florida and Pennsylvania more important than the overall number?"
I'm guessing that the truth is that almost no one asks the public editor silly questions like this. Times readers are more astute.
Ms Spayd, this sort of mindless shilling is an affront to past public editors, as well as Times readers.
2
Instead of the sports analogy how about the chances of a meteor hitting the earth, or nearly missing - everyone is interested in that. Or, more popularly the possibilities of a zombie apocalypse, but that seems hard to predict.
1
Sorry, but I didn't learn anything useful from this. It was just one more example of the interminable horse race coverage.
How about a column on the Times' soft-pedalling of reporting, as opposed to comment, on the Comey announcement? Not to mention all the subsequent disinformation about indicting Hillary that emerged, and is still emerging, from the Trump campaign.
I was feeling very let down by MSNBC's role in pushing all-Trump-all-the-time ever since he and Melania floated down the escalator, to announce his candidacy to a throng of paid Broadway extras; but in recent days I've learned more about the October Surprise (that was Not a Surprise to its perpetrators) from MSNBC than from the NY Times.
How about a column on the Times' soft-pedalling of reporting, as opposed to comment, on the Comey announcement? Not to mention all the subsequent disinformation about indicting Hillary that emerged, and is still emerging, from the Trump campaign.
I was feeling very let down by MSNBC's role in pushing all-Trump-all-the-time ever since he and Melania floated down the escalator, to announce his candidacy to a throng of paid Broadway extras; but in recent days I've learned more about the October Surprise (that was Not a Surprise to its perpetrators) from MSNBC than from the NY Times.
5
You ask the wrong question. Now that the election is nigh upon us, it makes sense to poll the electorate, assuming (not definitely a good one) the pollsters can find them and make accurate diagnoses about their answers.
The question that must be asked in the post mortem of the Times' worst ever political coverage cycle, by far, is why was there so much attention paid to polling in the period of time from April, 2015, when candidates were declaring their candidacies, through January, 2016, a period of time when not a single vote was cast?
Ask also why, with the information not well buried, was no serious investigation of Donald Trump done before he was the Republican nominee? Instead, listicles of Trump's Twitter insults? The Times' refusal to examine Trump, and to be all too entertained by his insults of other Republican candidates, helped to make him too big to fail. By the time the Times got around to digging, his fervent supporters were in no mood to accept those findings. Had the investigation been done in a timely fashion, Trump might not have benefited from the profiles in cowardice from the regular wing capitulation of the Republican Party.
The question that must be asked in the post mortem of the Times' worst ever political coverage cycle, by far, is why was there so much attention paid to polling in the period of time from April, 2015, when candidates were declaring their candidacies, through January, 2016, a period of time when not a single vote was cast?
Ask also why, with the information not well buried, was no serious investigation of Donald Trump done before he was the Republican nominee? Instead, listicles of Trump's Twitter insults? The Times' refusal to examine Trump, and to be all too entertained by his insults of other Republican candidates, helped to make him too big to fail. By the time the Times got around to digging, his fervent supporters were in no mood to accept those findings. Had the investigation been done in a timely fashion, Trump might not have benefited from the profiles in cowardice from the regular wing capitulation of the Republican Party.
6
If this paper published horoscopes, I suspect there would be a disclaimer saying that there is no evidence that astrology can predict the future.
When it publishes the so-called probability of one candidate winning, there should likewise be a disclaimer stating clearly that — particularly in a presidential election campaign that everyone acknowledges is unprecedented in major ways — there is no such thing as "the probability" of one candidate winning.
This nonexistence should be obvious from the fact that leading organizations' calculations of this supposed probability are so discrepant. But it is also obvious when one attempts to define what this probability _means_.
To be meaningful, a probability needs to apply to a situation that is not only repeatable but for which there exists data about what could happen when it is repeated. In this election, neither of these conditions holds.
When it publishes the so-called probability of one candidate winning, there should likewise be a disclaimer stating clearly that — particularly in a presidential election campaign that everyone acknowledges is unprecedented in major ways — there is no such thing as "the probability" of one candidate winning.
This nonexistence should be obvious from the fact that leading organizations' calculations of this supposed probability are so discrepant. But it is also obvious when one attempts to define what this probability _means_.
To be meaningful, a probability needs to apply to a situation that is not only repeatable but for which there exists data about what could happen when it is repeated. In this election, neither of these conditions holds.
7
I think what they mean by an 85% probability of winning is that when they make this prediction they expect the candidate to win 85% of the time. As we've learned, this is not a science, no matter how many statistics they flood us with.
Ms Spayd is in way over her head.
Seems that her main interest is to attract more readers to the Times (no matter how) as opposed to actually caring about reporting actual news in an actually unbiased way. The very role of an editor (public or not) is to make considered judgements about what is newsworthy. not to appeal to the biases of the masses.
Thus her abominable first column about "interacting with readers", whatever that means.
And then followed up by this piece of fluff.
God save journalism
Seems that her main interest is to attract more readers to the Times (no matter how) as opposed to actually caring about reporting actual news in an actually unbiased way. The very role of an editor (public or not) is to make considered judgements about what is newsworthy. not to appeal to the biases of the masses.
Thus her abominable first column about "interacting with readers", whatever that means.
And then followed up by this piece of fluff.
God save journalism
22
Thank you for writing this. I couldn't agree more.
7
I'm a man, and the field-goal metaphor is meaningless to me as well. It's great that the public editor can "picture a miss," but I can't. I also imagine a great many readers outside of the United States can't, either.
A football metaphor is truly the only one that covers all the "necessary probabilities"? It seems that it has indeed gotten "complicated" when many people don't understand it.
A football metaphor is truly the only one that covers all the "necessary probabilities"? It seems that it has indeed gotten "complicated" when many people don't understand it.
3
The former occupant of this space had an article last week in the WaPo about Nate Silver and 538. In it, she passed on unknowingly, her lack of grasp of math, which shows here with her successor with frankly a dimwitted football metaphor.
"On stage that night, podcast host Jody Avirgan referred to the “foregone conclusion” that Clinton would win.
Silver, alarmed, nearly shouted his response: “No, no, no, no!”
After all, he reminded everyone, what if you had a 15 percent chance of losing at Russian roulette? You might not call your survival a foregone conclusion."
Here, Silver seemed so upset at the Podcast's talking head's vacuity, he forgot HIS math. In a six chambered revolver, in a game of Russian Roulette, the chance of shooting yourself in the head is 1:6, which is 16.6666666666666%, not 15%. I'm a stickler for numbers, and I know that just about nobody goes into journalism because they are.
"On stage that night, podcast host Jody Avirgan referred to the “foregone conclusion” that Clinton would win.
Silver, alarmed, nearly shouted his response: “No, no, no, no!”
After all, he reminded everyone, what if you had a 15 percent chance of losing at Russian roulette? You might not call your survival a foregone conclusion."
Here, Silver seemed so upset at the Podcast's talking head's vacuity, he forgot HIS math. In a six chambered revolver, in a game of Russian Roulette, the chance of shooting yourself in the head is 1:6, which is 16.6666666666666%, not 15%. I'm a stickler for numbers, and I know that just about nobody goes into journalism because they are.
1
Bang...and we're Christopher Walken bleeding in Robert De Niro's arms as he wails...
Why did you do that? Writing a vacuous article such as this.
This adds nothing to the discourse or the understanding and serves merely as a puff piece advertising a "new" and "unusual" feature of the NY Times.
You shouldn't be wasting your time on topics like this.
Perhaps you should spend some time writing about the Times' reporters collusion with the Clinton campaign.
This adds nothing to the discourse or the understanding and serves merely as a puff piece advertising a "new" and "unusual" feature of the NY Times.
You shouldn't be wasting your time on topics like this.
Perhaps you should spend some time writing about the Times' reporters collusion with the Clinton campaign.
16
You had me until that final sentence, which seemed of a piece with "vacuous article[s] such as this."
2
If one is going to talk about integrity in journalism, and particularly journalism as practiced by the NY Times, its editors and its reporters, the collusion of the staff with the Clinton campaign is a fine place to start.
1