Nate Silver Explains How Not Only Does “Bias Make You Stupid,” It Makes Others Stupid Too.

natesilverEthics Alarms covered some of this topic years ago in a post about how the news media’s unceasing and uncritical fawning over Barack Obama made him a less effective, indeed a bad, President. (If someone can find the link, I’ll post it. I don’t have the energy this morning.) Now polling and stat guru Nate Silver has written an intriguing analysis of the 2016 election that argues that liberal news media bias—you know, that thing that doesn’t exist—perversely helped elect President Trump. In an earlier January essay, Silver wrote,

National journalists usually interpreted conflicting and contradictory information as confirming their prior belief that Clinton would win. The most obvious error, given that Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, is that they frequently mistook Clinton’s weakness in the Electoral College for being a strength. They also focused extensively on Clinton’s potential gains with Hispanic voters, but less on indications of a decline in African-American turnout. At moments when the polls showed the race tightening, meanwhile, reporters frequently focused on other factors, such as early voting and Democrats’ supposedly superior turnout operation, as reasons that Clinton was all but assured of victory.

In his most recent article, Silver explains…

..Trump was pretty close to having an optimal Electoral College strategy as judged by our tipping-point calculation. Clinton made a couple of mistakes, meanwhile. So did campaign reporters, who usually lauded Clinton’s strategy while maligning Trump’s, making essentially the same errors that the Clinton campaign did….Like any other kind of organization, campaigns are subject to internal politics and potentially misaligned incentives, and their decisions can be influenced by outside groups, such as donors and the media. Making the technically correct decision may not be easy if it contradicts the conventional wisdom,7 and correct Electoral College strategy (i.e., not necessarily campaigning in the closest states if they aren’t near the tipping point) is often slightly counterintuitive….we should talk some about how the media covered Clinton’s and Trump’s Electoral College tactics. Being among the most technical aspects of the campaign, this was generally not a strength of mainstream coverage. For instance, on Oct. 30, The New York Times jabbed at Trump for “campaigning well outside the traditional band of states that decide presidential elections,” including in New Mexico and Michigan, “two solidly blue states where polling has shown Mrs. Clinton with a clear lead” — failing to recognize that they were potentially tipping-point states even if Clinton was ahead there. A few days later, on Nov. 3, the Times criticized Trump for campaigning in too wide a range of states…Rather than wielding data and turnout machinery as tools, Mr. Trump has instead battered at the political map in a less discriminating way, trying to shift the national race a point or two in his favor and perhaps find a soft spot in Mrs. Clinton’s support…This was, it would turn out, pretty much exactly the strategy that swung the Electoral College to Trump….To some extent, the media’s misconceptions about Electoral College strategy and Clinton’s errors may have reinforced one another.

To summarize, the news media was so determined to assist Clinton and make Trump look incompetent as well as foolish that it made the Clinton campaign over-confident and vulnerable to self-defeating distortions of reality. The media’s misrepresentation of the state of the campaign wasn’t merely conveyed to the public, who the news media had a duty to inform more accurately, but the Clinton campaign as well. The Clinton team was only reading biased accounts and analysis that pronounced its campaign strategy sound, well-considered and effective, and that began with the assumption that Trump was a buffoon who couldn’t possibly win. The campaign’s own confirmation bias made it vulnerable to the news media spin. In short, the news media’s bias made the Clinton campaign stupid.

The Trump campaign, in contrast, assumed that the media was attempting to boost Clinton (which it was), so it ignored mainstream media criticism of its own tactics. Is it really a surprise that the Trump administration is taking the same approach now that it is in power?

Silver is taking some legitimate criticism for  trying to focus attention away from his own profession, pollsters, who also lulled Democrats into a false state of security. Nonetheless, he is correct about how media bias, and bias generally, often has unanticipated consequences.  Objective, factual reporting by unbiased reporters and editors is in everyone’s interest. That’s what makes it ethical.

Funny, I thought journalists already knew that.

____________________

Pointer: Newsbusters

Source: 538

9 Comments

Filed under Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Research and Scholarship

9 responses to “Nate Silver Explains How Not Only Does “Bias Make You Stupid,” It Makes Others Stupid Too.

  1. charlesgreen

    “Objective, factual reporting by unbiased reporters and editors is in everyone’s interest. That’s what makes it ethical.”

    I hope we can all agree on that; the devil of course lies in the details, but it never hurts to agree on basic principles.

    • Charles, I agree with the premise. My question (as the husband of a journalism teacher old enough to have been taught traditionally) is “does such a thing exist, given the demonstrable bias of most Universities over the past 20 plus years?”

      “because I want to change the world” is a self indictment that the vast majority of journalism students do not understand.

  2. Silver is not a pollster but rather a polling aggregator who needs to figure out how to factor in the 2016 election to his future models.

    Still, Silver’s final model the morning of election day gave Trump a 29% chance of winning, and about a 10% chance of winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote. These numbers should increase Silver’s reputation, not decrease it. If you watch a .290 hitter face an average pitcher, you should not be surprised if the next thing you see is a hit. And nobody of note other than Silver was discussing the possibility that Trump would lose the popular vote and win the electoral college. Before this election 2000 was seen as a lightning strike. That Silver gave this a 10% chance of happening given the erroneous groupthink that predominated is to his credit.

    I followed Silver’s 538 blog, and as a result was slightly less surprised at what happened.

    • Rich in CT

      It is even possible that his probabilities were dead on. With a 10% chance that it could happen, that means that we might have hit on the 1 in 10 combinations of circumstances that caused this to happen. It is only with the retrospective of it happening that it looks all but certain to have happened.

      • And yet calling it by odds is silly. It isn’t a game of chance, it’s an election.

        • Odds reflect the unpredictability of any event in which certain factors are not completely known or understood. So why is using odds silly? By the end, Silver said there was almost a 1 in 3 likelihood that Trump would win. That means that his call wasn’t shown to be wrong. A 1 in 3 event happens all the time, everywhere, millions of times an hour, a minute even

          Even if he had said, as some polls did, that the odds were 99 to 1…that doesn’t mean the one chance won’t or can’t happen..

  3. valkygrrl

    Jack, if I recall correctly, you were unhappy with Larry Lessig for offering legal advice to potential faithless electors. Do you apply the same reasoning to these people? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/legal_protections_for_civil_servants_who_refuse_to_carry_out_illegal_orders.html

    • You recall wrongly. What I wrote was…

      “Professor Larry Lessig of Harvard Law, who heads an ethics institute there, is encouraging electors to be “faithless,” as in “double-cross the voters who elected them.” Some ethics institute you have there, Harvard!”

      That isn’t legal advice. That’s unethical advocacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s