5 ms·
This is a very polite interpretation of (some) traditional journalists' dislike for Mr Silver. It offers a consistent explanation for the dislike and vitriol, b
by kevinalexbrown 14y ago
This is a very polite interpretation of (some) traditional journalists' dislike for Mr Silver. It offers a consistent explanation for the dislike and vitriol, but there is another explanation to explore. Silver presents a method of investigation that is not only epistemologically different from traditional punditry, but threatening to it, and their dislike is centered on the threat his method poses, not just its intellectual merits or misunderstanding thereof. There are plenty of things for journalists to intellectually object to - why focus their efforts here?
Consider that Mr Silver has been given awards and accolades most journalists would kill for: Time's list of 100 most influential people in the world, best political blog Webby award, Rolling Stone's 100 agents of change, the editor in chief of Politico listed him as "one of the most powerful people on earth", he's given a prestigious lecture at Columbia Journalism School, etc. He's received accolades, even from traditional journalism sources, that most journalists, even at the NYTimes, would never dream of. Speaking of which, the Public Editor of the Times wrote "he’s probably (and please know that I use the p-word loosely) its most high-profile writer at this particular moment."
All this for someone who has never worked a proper newsroom since college, never had a television show, cable or otherwise, and just started a blog four years ago because he was (supposedly) annoyed at laws that threatened his livelihood - online poker.
So imagine seeing someone like this receiving all the awards you've coveted since you started journalism in earnest. While the recoil against Mr Silver might be clothed in intellectual differences for some, the reason they care probably has more to do with seeing someone who differs from their traditional approach getting so much recognition.
Finally, I'd note that there are many traditional journalists who support Mr Silver's approach - his awards from traditional journalist organizations speak to this. Rather, it's a very specific group that seems to feel threatened.
- randlet 14y ago"his livelihood - online poker." Nate was also an incredible asset to the early online poker community. He was one of the most respected members of 2+2 and really helped pushed poker strategy forward. His detailed and analytical approach to the game helped make a lot of people a bunch of money during the poker boom.
- socmoth 14y agoIs this still available online in some form?
- randlet 14y agoThis should give you his archived posts http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=0&Forum=All_Forums&Name=4664&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&&fromsearch=1&fromprof=1 http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/dosearch.php?Cat=0&Forum...
- mtgx 14y agoIsn't online poker illegal in US now?
- stanleydrew 14y agoI don't think it's illegal to play. It's just illegal for a US financial institution to transfer funds to an entity that runs an online poker service. Or something to that effect.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- randlet 14y agoIt's not illegal to play poker online. I'm not an expert in the legality/legislation of online poker but the PPA[1] is a good place to start. [1] http://theppa.org/ http://theppa.org/
- zecho 14y agoPlaying is not illegal, but transferring money overseas can amount to wire fraud and money laundering. When Silver was doing his best poker work, the laws were far muddier.
- w1ntermute 14y agoYeah, but you can play on foreign sites. Just use BTC and you should be safe.
- zem 14y agoone of the comments on the post noted that it should probably have used 'pundit' rather than 'journalist' throughout, to be more specific as to the kind of journalist who objects to silver.
- adastra 14y agoThey've hated him ever since he spoiled the 2008 primary for them. Nate has said he started following politics because of poker, but he started the 538 blog because of the Hillary vs. Obama primary. The news media were still touting it as a close horse race when Nate knew that it was already over. Obama already had enough delegates that it was almost impossible for him to lose. He saw it as blatant deception on the part of the news media as a way to sell more newspapers. When he pointed this out, he just flat out embarrassed them. I really miss the original 538 blog. Nate would give snarky commentary on whatever the political news of the day was. Now that he works for the NY Times all he does is crunch the numbers. It's not nearly as entertaining.
- mayneack 14y agoHis twitter is more snarky like the old blog. Might change a bit since the NYT said he shouldn't be making bets with Scarborough
- zecho 14y agoHe's not an employee of the NY Times, per se, though, and I don't think he's bound to their reporter's rules. He licenses the 538 brand to the Times (similar to the deal Freakonomics got).
- mayneack 14y agoYeah, but they can still exert pressure on him.
- rhizome 14y agoThe Times derives much more benefit from the association than he does.
- adastra 14y agoI think whatever the relationship, it's clear he no longer comments on anything that isn't directly poll-related. Someone is telling him to "stay in his lane" and he's doing it. His pieces are all long, detailed poll analyses. Nate could be pretty hilarious in print. I want the old short snarky articles back.
- bitcartel 14y agoAfter all the number-crunching it was amusing to see a headline which even a headless chicken could have come up with. "Ohio Has 50-50 Chance of Deciding Election" http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/oct-22-ohio-has-50-50-chance-of-deciding-election/ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/oct-22-o... Perhaps some pundits dislike Mr Silver because he is able to rationalise what they only have a gut feeling for.
- theorique 14y agoNot so much rationalize - he's actually putting it on a statistical and quantitative foundation. There's a fundamental difference between arguing from narrative and history, and technical arguments based on the statistics of how people actually vote based on polling.
- alexqgb 14y agoWorse that that, he's demonstrating that the 'access' and 'insights' and 'instincts' on which their status as Notable Pundits depends is actually worthless. They are simply making shit up, and what they invent is invariably a tight race scenario because that's what gets the most profitable ratings. In othr words, he is demonstrating both their fraudulence and the disservice they do to democracy. And people LOVE him.
- aptwebapps 14y ago"... what they invent is invariably a tight race scenario because that's what gets the most profitable ratings." I disagree. I much prefer the article's explanation for why they invariably invent a tight race: journalistic 'objectivity'. As Coddington pointed out, when all the highest sources on both sides of the campaign say it's tight, who is Silver to disagree?