I too would rather see the butcher's thumb. But what I think you might add is that having a PhD in political science should-- and usually does-- teach you to challenge your own assumptions. If anything this tends to make us too cautious (regardless of ideology). My one-time colleague and friend, the late Stanley Kelley, liked to say that the best answer when asked to predict the impact of events on the future was "nothing much will come of it." Stan was admittedly wrong when applying it to the early years of Viet Nam, but I think most of us tend, too often perhaps, to invoke Kelley's law.
The fiction that we can act (or write) without bias is costly -- to everyone. Better to expose, reflect and discuss our biases (e.g., priors) as thoroughly as we can.
After 2016, journalists and election forecasters were criticized harshly for predicting Clinton was going to win the election, possibly due to a perceived "bias" for Clinton. This has led to a misunderstanding of what happened in the 2016 election. Most people may not have understood that Trump could win the 2016 election if there was a normal polling error. From my experience with talking with some of my friends and people I know, people are stunned that forecasters show Biden as a favorite if not a heavy favorite, but that is what the evidence shows. In an attempt by journalists and forecasters to appear as “non-partisan” and "objective" as possible in order to "correct" their "biases" from 2016, people may be more uninformed about politics and political behavior. This may make people are even more distrustful of coverage of politics and political behavior. The coverage has gotten worse not better because of this.
Spot on. I think the phenomenon you describe applies to so-called mainstream political journalism writ large. Now, I happen to agree with your political philosophy as expressed in this piece, but even if I didn't, I'd appreciate that you fully disclose it. I can't imagine the rest of the folks about whom you speak doing that and risking their fiefdoms. I guess that's probably why I subscribe here and not to the NYT. Aside: we see a certain right leaning network try to cover themselves in the blanket of "fair and balanced." It's by shenanigans like that, that we miss what's really going on out there. Pardon the long comment.
off topic, but related to concern of governance by the minority - have you given thought to this same idea regarding religion/faith? As this country becomes less religiously affiliated, it will continue to be governed by those of active adherence to a religion. Some real ramifications down the road, I believe.
I too would rather see the butcher's thumb. But what I think you might add is that having a PhD in political science should-- and usually does-- teach you to challenge your own assumptions. If anything this tends to make us too cautious (regardless of ideology). My one-time colleague and friend, the late Stanley Kelley, liked to say that the best answer when asked to predict the impact of events on the future was "nothing much will come of it." Stan was admittedly wrong when applying it to the early years of Viet Nam, but I think most of us tend, too often perhaps, to invoke Kelley's law.
The fiction that we can act (or write) without bias is costly -- to everyone. Better to expose, reflect and discuss our biases (e.g., priors) as thoroughly as we can.
After 2016, journalists and election forecasters were criticized harshly for predicting Clinton was going to win the election, possibly due to a perceived "bias" for Clinton. This has led to a misunderstanding of what happened in the 2016 election. Most people may not have understood that Trump could win the 2016 election if there was a normal polling error. From my experience with talking with some of my friends and people I know, people are stunned that forecasters show Biden as a favorite if not a heavy favorite, but that is what the evidence shows. In an attempt by journalists and forecasters to appear as “non-partisan” and "objective" as possible in order to "correct" their "biases" from 2016, people may be more uninformed about politics and political behavior. This may make people are even more distrustful of coverage of politics and political behavior. The coverage has gotten worse not better because of this.
Spot on. I think the phenomenon you describe applies to so-called mainstream political journalism writ large. Now, I happen to agree with your political philosophy as expressed in this piece, but even if I didn't, I'd appreciate that you fully disclose it. I can't imagine the rest of the folks about whom you speak doing that and risking their fiefdoms. I guess that's probably why I subscribe here and not to the NYT. Aside: we see a certain right leaning network try to cover themselves in the blanket of "fair and balanced." It's by shenanigans like that, that we miss what's really going on out there. Pardon the long comment.
Thanks for this. It is a breath of fresh air in what has become a race to getting a seat on the fence.
off topic, but related to concern of governance by the minority - have you given thought to this same idea regarding religion/faith? As this country becomes less religiously affiliated, it will continue to be governed by those of active adherence to a religion. Some real ramifications down the road, I believe.