Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#41

Post by jamesaguilar »

nknighthb wrote: post #36
jamesaguilar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a needlessly cynical take on the issue, especially in the context of a news disseminating organization like the NYT. The purpose of the public editor is not necessarily to change anything, but to give some insight into the machinery of the news process. Unlike ombudspersons (yeah, went there), they do not need to be heeded to be effective at their role, which is to give the audience context to evaluat…

The New York Times Public Editor position was explicitly referred to by the New York Times as an ombudsman[1][2], and it was created in response to a massive ethics scandal. The role has nothing to do with giving the public "context". [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/business/media/31PAPE.html [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/us/the-times-chooses-veter...

Fair enough. I should have said, "The purpose I see them as being useful for," and it's not fair for me to criticize your position on that basis.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#42

Post by LordHumungous »

mjn wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he would go to a sports network over the culture clash between statistics and narrative. Sports has traditionally been extremely negative on "stats geeks", and favored narrative explanations, along with factors like "grit" and "determination" and that kind of thing. Silver's own former work in sabermetrics was a frequent target of pot-shots from ESPN commentators for years. There used to be a bl…

Obviously you don't watch sports. "Teams down by 10 points in the middle of the third quarter while on the road in November during a waxing moon have won 23.3% of the time in the last 16 years."

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#43

Post by jamesaguilar »

icelancer wrote: post #26
jamesaguilar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally, but not recently. Sports has been very focused on statistics for at least the last decade, probably longer. Most large sports organizations have dedicated statistics departments and make many of their decisions based on the same.

There is a big difference between "focused on statistics" and a valid statistical approach. Quoting ERA, Wins, RBIs, and even advanced metrics like WAR/FIP/VORP is totally different than validating methods through regression, machine learning, and the like. Everyone is happy to point at "stats." Almost nobody wants to hear about confidence intervals.

You can only expect so much dedication to the numbers from people who watch a thing for entertainment.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#44

Post by jessriedel »

robrenaud wrote: post #35
jessriedel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Readers prefer reading human narratives over rational analysis in all areas, whether sports or politics. It's not even really about a distaste for mathematical analysis so much as a distaste for cold rationality in general. There's lots of fascinating strategy involved with blocking schemes in American football ("if I step here, he'll step here, so instead I move this way...") that are analytical but not numerical. W…

Are you sure the blocking stuff has no numerical solution or reasonable analysis? I would not be surprised if the "how to block" mini-game could be productively analyzed in a game theoretic fashion in terms of a few discrete tactics and empirical success probabilities given the tactics choices. From that data, you can compute equilibrium mixed strategies for both the offensive and defensive positions. This was kind o…

Given a discrete list of tactics and enough data, it's of course possible to generate a best strategy for any particular situation numerically. So yes, if your question is "should I pull block or chip block here?" and you are willing to throw out all the information specific to the situation not found in the data (e.g. the fact that the left tackle's ankle is a bit sore today), then you can do it.

But the point is that detailed blocking foot work is not adequately captured by such a framework (unless you're going to do detailed numerical simulations of every part of everyone's body). There is no concise way to explain exactly why chop blocks work well in certain situations, and why a hypothetical block which seems mechanically similar is completely useless in the same situation. Human bodies are complicated, and the answer is usually just "empirically, that's how it works out".

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#45

Post by diego_moita »

I just read Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise" and I think this makes a lot of sense. Silver never was a political junkie, as all the NYT political journalists are. He was drawn into political statistical analysis almost by accident: he saw how "noisy" the political analysis were and knew that he could do something about it. In the book he clearly shows that baseball and poker are a lot more interesting subjects for him.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#46

Post by necubi »

kmfrk wrote: post #39
thaumaturgy wrote: post #14

I was skeptical when Nate Silver first got picked up by the NY Times; I was an avid follower of his site when it was independent (during campaign years). But, the Times really did a great job of supporting his work. The infographics and visualizations and interactive graphs that they produced -- typically with D3.js, which was cool to see -- were really second-to-none. (Who can forget http://www.nytimes.com/interacti…

He's been given the authority to do a lot of hiring, so I would honestly be surprised, if he didn't go on to hire some d3.js boffins.

Actually, Mike Bostock (creator of d3) has been employed by the Times for awhile now.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#47

Post by vanderZwan »

chasing wrote: post #4

I feel like traditional pundits got pissed off because he kept wrecking their narratives. And he upset them further by turning political prognostication into something understandable by common readers -- instead of something only pointy-hatted political wizards could divine with the right amount of eye-of-newt and other secret ingredients. Anyway: The New York Times should've worked harder to keep him. They should fi…

> And he upset them further by turning political prognostication into something understandable by common readers -- instead of something only pointy-hatted political wizards could divine with the right amount of eye-of-newt and other secret ingredients.

And get better results in the process.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#48

Post by gdulli »

There are so many more inputs and outcomes to model in sports than in politics, I'm not surprised that it's a more interesting subject matter for a statistician. He never seemed too much into the wonkier side of politics.

The science of predicting election outcomes may continue to be improved, but perhaps it's essentially solved in a way that sports prediction isn't.

Re: Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times

#49

Post by danso »

nknighthb wrote: post #7
_delirium wrote: post #2

Meta comment: the institutionalized role of the "public editor" as a kind of quasi-independent internal advocate for the interests of the public has fascinated me for a while. They generally have no real power, but are given a platform and considerable independence, and are supposed to help hold newspapers to their stated interest in informing the public, with an expectation that they will be critical to some degree.…

"Public editor" is basically a particular incarnation of ombudsman. One thing common to ombudsman roles is that they're powerless and routinely ignored. They're the equivalent of "We are taking this seriously.", a meaningless gesture designed to distract and obfuscate. The people who take such roles are simply pawns.

Sorry, but I have to call this out as blanket, misguided and uninformed criticism. I've been a frequent reader of the Times ombudsman in the 10 or so years since it was put in place after the Jayson Blair scandal. Sullivan has been the most incisive, most responsive of all the ombudsmen so far.

You're right that the position is toothless...she has no ability to fire people or allocate resources of her own. What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. She's like an internal affairs cop (who themselves have limited direct power) but who is guaranteed a spot in print and on web in America's biggest paper.

What other companies have such a position? If you're thinking, "X tech company who got hacked and wrote a lovely apology letter about it"...well, then you thoroughly misunderstand the public editor's province. Her equivalent at tech company X would be someone who interviewed the engineers who fucked up and then put their names and quotes into print...not someone who does PR apologetics for the company.

She was among the first under the Times masthead to point out that their incoming CEO had some major problems and to say what many were privately thinking. No, she didn't get him fired or removed...but again, that's not her purview. Her role is to raise awareness and stir the pot in a way that most people internally will never do. She is most certainly not a "pawn"

Post reply on HN