The Perils of Punditry
Pundit credibility – the accuracy of prognosticators – is the subject of a well-written paper from Hamilton College. The statistical analysis is particularly impressive. WC recognizes that the study has its critics.
Here’s the abstract:
We evaluated the predictions of politicians, journalists, and pundits (collectively, “prognosticators”) over a 16-month period surrounding the 2008 United States federal elections. We sought to test the accuracy of these predictions and understand what makes individuals unusually good or bad at prognostication. We evaluated a random sample of Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation transcripts and printed columns from the most prominent American prognosticators. Ultimately, we determined that some prognosticators are significantly better than others, and there are characteristics that significantly impact a prognosticator’s predictive power.
(Yes, WC had read the criticisms of the study, including the situational bias favoring liberal commentators. It might explain Krugman; it doesn’t explain Thomas.)
For WC, there’s good news and bad news. The paper finds that WC’s favorite columnist, Paul Krugman, is by a considerable extent the most accurate predictor of events, getting 16 of 18 predictions right. Good writing and high levels of accuracy; what’s not to like?
More good news: liberal pundits are by a considerable margin more accurate than conservatives. Of course, Cal Thomas (correct only 1 time out of 16!) single-handedly pulled down the conservative score.
On the other hand, lawyers were by far the worst profession at predictions. Ouch.
WC makes no predictions regarding the accuracy of this essay.
I’ve not yet read either the paper nor it’s critics myself but the conclusions are plain, easy to understand and sensible.
As general characteristics, to be a ‘pundit’ on the ‘right’ in this country during these times is to put aside facts as being of less importance than fantasies based upon ideology. Putting belief in God, Faith, Gut Feelings, Intuition over fact based analysis is, at it’s core, nothing more than an unwarranted and extremely expensive indulgence in wishful fantasies.
To be a ‘pundit’ on the left generally means using fact based reasoning to drive ones ideologies.
Then it comes to accurate predictions, fact based analysis wins overwhelmingly often.
In point of fact, the concept of Trickle Down Economics which is so much beloved by the ‘right’ is a classic example of an ideological {wishful fantasy} driven theory with no peer driven accepted research results while there have been many proven governmental spending programs which have accepted research showing stimulus to jobs and the economy in general. {Latest example – Cash for junkers anyone?}
Wishful thinking versus factual analysis. Right versus left.
In truth, it’s a really sad, sad debate.
notellin
May 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm