The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role • Hacker News Board

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#61

Post by untog » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #52

Before I start, Disclosure: I'm neither a Trump or a Hillary supporter and I don't mean the following to be political. I'm just very dissatisfied with the sad reality of how I cannot trust anything online anymore. For me, the moment all my trust in NYT died was the election day. The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent th…

> The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent that that's opposite of the truth.

I remember that interactive story. It was not what you describe. It was showing Hillary's chances of winning throughout the evening - she started at 90% or so, based on the polling averages they'd been running on a regular basis throughout the entire election season. Then, as the evening wore on, and results were not as the polling would indicate, her chances of winning dropped, dropped, and then obviously went to zero.

Now, I won't argue that in hindsight that was a pretty bad feature to run. I think it vastly overestimated reader ability to understand statistical probabilities, as well as the accuracy of polling data (the Brexit vote ought to have been an indicator to be cautious). But it absolutely wasn't showing false data that indicated Hillary was winning when she was not.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#62

Post by YPCrumble » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #46

specialist wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurer's response to ACA reminds me of a Frank & Ernest comic, which I can't find right now, sorry: Two USPS workers. Package label says "Do not bend, fold, mutilate." One says to the other "Doesn't say anything about crumple!" Har har har. --- I had high hopes for ACA. I believed the 15% medical loss ratio was the poison pill that would eventually drive insurers out of business, and therefore lead to Medicare for A…

I believe the ACA itself was a poison pill that would make the system so inefficient to drive it to collapse and bring about single payer. The failure of Republicans to implement an alternative has pretty much guaranteed it.

I'm hoping Donald Trump is the poison pill that will bring about the Progressive movement.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#63

Post by untog » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:07 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #20

cwyers wrote: post #6

On one hand, having an ombudsman (whatever you want to call it) is a good thing for an institution like the Times. On the other hand... having Liz Spayd in that role is pointless, so this isn't a loss. The past year has shown us how the New York Times has let false equivalence and the need to sell newspapers to both sides of the aisle has severely damaged the quality of the paper's coverage, and Spayd has continually…

I'd feel more able to agree with you if the NYT didn't carry water for some whoppers ("you can keep you doctor", "insurers will compete for your business", etc.) back when the ACA was passed in the first place.

I don't see how reporting a politican's comments were "carrying water". At the time Obama said that you could keep your doctor I don't think there was any way to disprove his statement, because the ACA hadn't been enacted yet.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#64

Post by makmanalp » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #43

selllikesybok wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has 65k cash to toss around like that? :) If the doctor can't effectively predict what benefit said scan or pill regimen will provide (50% chance of 10 year life extension,90% chance of 2 years...? not even getting into quality of life), how does the consumer make informed choices? This approach devolves to if you have money you get care, if not, you don't, regardless of need or efficacy. Similar to any other mar…

> Who has 65k cash to toss around like that? :) Most people who are paying that much for pills are retired middle class people trying to stay healthy into old age. Or alive for a few more years. But people should be able to pay for typical levels of healthcare. The fact that this isn't true is a question of economics and employment opportunities, not entirely problem with the "healthcare system" itself. > There or so…

> Most people who are paying that much for pills are retired middle class people trying to stay healthy into old age

What of all the people whose lifespan is cut early by disease? Getting cancer or some other serious disease at a young age just due to sheer dumb luck is less common, but still quite prevalent. Or let's just think about traffic accidents? It's just preposterous to me that people should ever have to worry about sudden illness or injury. If you're looking for bloat and overspending, why not slash the defense budget instead?

> The best alternative for the patient is saying "yes" and spending $300k and live another year in diapers.

Wait, wasn't this exactly what republicans criticized obamacare for? The accusation was that there were "death panels" that would decide whether it's "worth it" to put all that money into that one dying patient, or whether it's better spent elsewhere. So we don't like it when obamacare appears to be doing it, but now that obamacare is gone we want it?

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#65

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:14 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #61

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #52

Before I start, Disclosure: I'm neither a Trump or a Hillary supporter and I don't mean the following to be political. I'm just very dissatisfied with the sad reality of how I cannot trust anything online anymore. For me, the moment all my trust in NYT died was the election day. The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent th…

> The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent that that's opposite of the truth. I remember that interactive story. It was not what you describe. It was showing Hillary's chances of winning throughout the evening - she started at 90% or so, based on the polling averages they'd been running on a regular basis throughout the e…

How is it not what I describe? You just described exactly what I described.

Everyone was wondering (both pro-trump and anti-trump) where the "90%" came from. Because it was pretty clear the race was not that obvious. People keep saying nobody saw it coming, but that's their emotion speaking. People just didn't want Donald Trump to win because they thought he's a joke, but objectively speaking people knew clearly that there were tons of his supporters around the U.S., and it was definitely NOT 90% chance that Hillary would win.

To me, THAT's the ultimate "fake news". Slapping a percentage number on it and putting it on the front page is just not right, especially when it's based on very subjective (and eventually false) speculative data.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#66

Post by zaphod12 » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:15 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #51

kobeya wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2X% actually (I remember watching it in real time), but the point stands as it was way higher than anyone else thought.

And Nate Silver got a lot of flak for that in the week before the election.

He did indeed! He published an article in the last week that listed 4 outcomes for the election, each with ~25% confidence. 3 Had a Clinton victory and 1 did not. I recall him also making some pretty emphatic condemnations of Sam Wang's Princeton Election Consortium, arguing that the numbers absolutely did not support PEC's >95% confidence in a Clinton win. Wang, for his part was so confident that he offered to eat a bug if Clinton lost. Wang's statistical method turned out to be a disaster, but he did follow through.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#67

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:16 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #60

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #52

Before I start, Disclosure: I'm neither a Trump or a Hillary supporter and I don't mean the following to be political. I'm just very dissatisfied with the sad reality of how I cannot trust anything online anymore. For me, the moment all my trust in NYT died was the election day. The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent th…

> The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent that that's opposite of the truth. I don't remember that at all. I remember the chances of winning, but that is not in any way a claim that she is winning by a large margin. In fact, reading the articles during the campaign and during election day, there was a lot of talk about e…

Here's one leading up to the election: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...

And here's the page I was talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

Now it says >95% Trump, but on that day it was the other way around--something like >95% Hillary.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#68

Post by 1wheel » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:16 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #18

shard972 wrote: post #4

So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble? I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.

Nate Silver has done some good work on what exactly went wrong, and it was a combination of factors: - (some) polls were systematically off, mostly because they underestimated white non-college turnout and overestimated black turnout. Note that poll errors were actually lower than for any other election–only this time they actually got the winner wrong. - Most of the poll aggregators operated under the assumption of…

Silver's analysis probably overstates the impact of the Comey letter:

> it’s now clear that Mrs. Clinton was weaker heading into Oct. 28 than was understood at the time. Several other polls were conducted over the same period that showed Mr. Trump gaining quickly on Mrs. Clinton in the days ahead of the Comey letter. And the timing of these polls — particularly the gap between when they were taken and when they were released — has probably helped to exaggerate the effect of Mr. Comey’s letter on the presidential race

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/upshot/a-2016-review-ther...

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#69

Post by untog » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:20 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #65

untog wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent that that's opposite of the truth. I remember that interactive story. It was not what you describe. It was showing Hillary's chances of winning throughout the evening - she started at 90% or so, based on the polling averages they'd been running on a regular basis throughout the e…

How is it not what I describe? You just described exactly what I described. Everyone was wondering (both pro-trump and anti-trump) where the "90%" came from. Because it was pretty clear the race was not that obvious. People keep saying nobody saw it coming, but that's their emotion speaking. People just didn't want Donald Trump to win because they thought he's a joke, but objectively speaking people knew clearly that…

You said:

"The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning"

I said:

"it absolutely wasn't showing false data that indicated Hillary was winning when she was not"

They're pretty clearly contradictory. That data, at no point, showed Hillary "supposedly" anything. You're making my point about readers not understanding statistical probabilities. 90% doesn't mean she's winning. It means she's got a 90% chance of winning, and there is a 10% chance she will lose. She lost.

> People keep saying nobody saw it coming, but that's their emotion speaking.

Quite the opposite. The data (that same data you're saying came from nowhere) showed that Hillary had a 90% chance of winning. There was variance in the polls, but pretty much all of them showed Hillary with an edge. Yes, there were a great many reports of people saying that there was a lot of Trump support across the country, but those reports are the very opposite of "objective" - they were thinly spread and anecdotal. Pretty much every newspaper ran stories interviewing those Trump supporters, but there was no hard data to quantify it.

Polling data isn't "subjective" and "speculative". There is a clearly defined methodology behind it. That methodology was incorrect in the 2016 election, and didn't accurate gauge support for two unprecedentedly unpopular candidates. That makes it "incorrect news", not "fake news".

You could argue that the news industry has relied too heavily on this sort of statistical prediction stuff, and I'd agree with you. But in 2012 FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted all but one state, and everyone absolutely lauded Nate Silver for it ("Is Nate Silver a witch?"). But really, what that meant is that each of Nate's predictions were the right side of 50%. And in 2016 they most definitely weren't.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#70

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 3:24 PM UTC

YPCrumble wrote: post #62

mason240 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the ACA itself was a poison pill that would make the system so inefficient to drive it to collapse and bring about single payer. The failure of Republicans to implement an alternative has pretty much guaranteed it.

I'm hoping Donald Trump is the poison pill that will bring about the Progressive movement.

He's a poison pill alright, but I'm not sure who's going to feel the poison.

He's either the end of the Democrat establishment (the election and post-election hysterics are unheard of in my lifetime), or the end of the Republican establishment (if he crashes and burns as bad as certain circles think he will).