We have a long series coming out on journalistic & analytic errors in the 2016 general election. Here's the intro: https://t.co/HTZkphflUk— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 19, 2017
1. Spicer (& Trump) are skilled at what we used to call “the spread” in high school debate. Make a lot of dubious arguments really fast.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
2. Buried among the many bad arguments there are usually a few grains of truth, i.e. examples of stories the media really did screw up.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
3. This is challenging to deal with. You can be 85% right and a skilled debater can usually pivot the conversation to the 15% you got wrong.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
4. In general, the correct response is to disengage and not let the other guy dictate the terms of the debate.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
5. Still, this gets into some hiccups for how the press evaluates itself. There can be too much focus on narrow truth vs. broader truth.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
6. A story can be 100% factually accurate (narrowly true) and yet basically be BS. Many stories driven by "the narrative" have this problem.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
7. Sometimes the reverse is true also. In a well-reported story, the conclusion should hold even if some nonessential details are wrong.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
8. I have no foolproof solutions, but a more iterative approach might help? Build on prior knowledge but be ready to revise conclusions.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 21, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment