Like a lot of progressives, I became a regular follower of Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com site in the run-up to the presidential election of 2008. It offered the most detailed statistical analysis of an election that I had ever seen--and, of course, one that presaged a great Democratic victory. But this was back when Nate was operating on his own, without a corporate master to please. Since then, he's had two corporate masters--not surprising, since we live in an age where money follows short-term success, no matter the nature of the source or its success. But they are corporate masters with very different orientations, and no one, no matter their professed objectivity, is completely immune to the whims of the people in charge.
So it is more than fair to compare Silver's subsequent work for each of his masters, and look for signs of those whims among the numbers. And there is no better point of comparison that Silver's various takes on the burning domestic political question of the day: which party will control the Senate after the 2014 elections?
Let's start with Silver's answer to this question back in his New York Times era, which you can find here, and read for yourself. It includes a race-by-race analysis of each contest, with ratings of the statistical probability of each race's outcome, and an overall assessment that hedges its bets not only about the likelihood about its accuracy, but the impact of the actual outcome on the subsequent election cycle. It strives, in short, to be as cautious in the interests of fair-mindedness as it can possibly be. This speaks well of not only Silver, but the Times as well.
It's a much different story now that Silver's working with ESPN--and not alone, but with a host of minions that apparently took months to put together, judging from the help-wanted ads that appeared on Silver's old site for months. Silver now apparently wants to put statistical analysis in the service of everyone, not just politics. All well and good. But his political analysis has apparently taken a sharp leap to the right, in that he is now predicting a Republican Senate gain of between six to 10 seats--and doing so despite the fact that other polls show the election moving in a much different direction.
I can hear you muttering now, "Yes, but the new assessment is a year closer to the election than the Times piece, so of course it's going to be different--and more accurate." Uh-uh. In the Internet age, a month is an eternity. Just ask Barack Obama, who looked deader than a doornail after his first debate with Romney, but won the election going away less than a month later. An election assessment seven months out is no more likely to be accurate than an assessment made a year earlier. The Nate Silver who wrote for the Times clearly knew that. The Nate Silver that now works for ESPN has one of his minions defend the incredible accuracy of early polling.
I suspect that Nate had more of a truly free hand at the Times, which, its reputation among conservatives to the contrary, truly is what Fox claims to be: fair and balanced. Their Op-Ed pages have featured, on a regular basis, the likes of David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and even Bill Kristol (whose hiring must have been in a moment of real weakness; he didn't last long).* ESPN, however, is a different story. As a sports network, its customer base has a more conservative slant, and needs to find ways to feed that base as much red meat as possible. Don't forget: this is a network that once thought it was a great idea to hire Rush Limbaugh as a color commentator for its NFL coverage. And we all know how well that worked out.
I don't think that Nate is a bad or dishonest person. Ultimately, like the rest of us, he's just someone making a living as best he can. But I think he's made a very bad business judgment by throwing in his lot with ESPN, and he may already be regretting it. Do not be shocked if this latest corporate marriage does not last long--and Silver finds himself, once again, looking for someone with numbers to help pay for his numbers.
*FULL DISCLOSURE: The Times has published several Letters to the Editor from me on the subjection of preservation for historic theaters.
No comments:
Post a Comment