Why Pundits Get Things Wrong

Great stuff. Don't miss this take on Roubini:

http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20081024_1

I think Bertrand Russell summed up the hedgehogs and foxes when he said:

The problem with the world is that fools are certain and the intelligent are full of doubt.

I thought this was a really interesting article. It speaks to me about why bipartisanship, cooperation, and the teamwork that we so direly need are going to be a difficult challenge in this media-oriented scream-at-em culture that the politicians of the past have made their careers on.

I am cautiously optimistic that the yelling will gradually be replaced with calmer discourse, but I don't know for sure... ;-)

One of my pet peeves is when TV news people and commentators mispronounce the word "pundits" by adding an extra "n" before the "t."

Using the same logic as in this article, predictions by the global warming alarmists like Al Gore also could be "180 degrees wrong." If ever there was a hedge-hog, it is Al Gore. He and his followers (Sharon Begley?) seek certainty and closure, dismiss information that undercuts their preconceptions and embrace evidence that reinforces them." How about looking at the numerous reputable scientists who express some doubt and uncertainty about the "catastrophe" of global warming?

Hey! Is there an echo in here?

I guess it worked the first time, too....

I have a prediction...<holds envelope to forehead>...Phil Tetlock will not be at Stanford University next year.

How do I know that? Begley says he's a "research psychologist at Stanford University." But Tetlock's cv says Berkeley. www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/tetlock.html

Luckily for Begley, the mistake is a flattering one. If it had been the other way around, Stanford would be screaming bloody murder for having a prof mistaken for a Golden Bear.

Maybe we need another column on the fact-checking of metapundits.

Speaking of predictions, here's one that is 100% guaranteed...I predict Philip Tetlock will not be at Stanford University next year.

How do I know that? Begley says he's a "research psychologist at Stanford University." OK...that's not exactly a prediction. But Tetlock's cv says Berkeley. http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/tetlock.html.

Maybe we need another article on the fact-checking of columns by meta-pundits.

Re: Just one point and one (I-must-have-a-death-wish) suggestion.

Good column, but one thing that probably further reduces the predictive power of pundits is that I think they tend to develop their own constituencies, a bit like politicians, a cheering section that they probably do not want to disappoint. Secondly, on a personal note, Sharon Bagley is a perfectly fine looking woman, but I wonder if she might want to use a photo of herself that does not seem to be saying, ???You slap me--I???ll slap you back!???
- - -
Border Enforcement + Immigration Moratorium + Job & Eco Sanity

...and it's always the same pundits over and over. Why isn't Amy Goodman or Bill Moyers (among others) asked to participate on the political debate shows? Until recently, I used to enjoy "Washington Week." But it has occurred to me that the same journalists come on week after week. They may be smart and civil, but there's something complaisant about the discourse. There's a tacit acceptance of the way things are done in and around Washington.

Missed by this article is the fact that for the most part pundits are not independent and simply use the "shows" to promote their agendas. For example, I have seen for years Financial shows that were supposed to be designed to provide information about the markets, and the economy turn instead into a Rightwing non-stop propaganda media event. The ratings for these programs depend on investors, and they tend to be Republicans, therefore an "appropiate" host is found, and next thing you know you have an RNC infomertial running 1 Hr per day every day.
Accountability in forecasting is of no consecuence. The same idiots come out day after day "predicting" things that never come out true with absolutely no consecuence to the host, or his/her guests.
If some one for example would care to go back one year into Mr. Kudlow's from MSNBC "predictions" given by him in his show, it would be nearly impossible to find a single instance where the man was right..... And now he got an extension on his contract with MSNBC to continue to "predict" away in his very particular strident Right Wing ways .
The only thing these people do to discourse is to eliminate it. The only thing we gain from these kind of "shows" is to lower our IQ level........ But as long as the ratings keep up who cares about getting it right? The Networks these days don't hire informed people, they hire loud mouths with strident controversial personalities with opinions that fit their audience. I guess that's why they call them "shows".

Did anyone really predict a 36,000 Dow any time soon? O_o

Dear LORD, we have got to start teaching economics in high school in America...

Jon Stewart killed CNN's Crossfire by correctly calling it "Political Theater"

What keeps these pundits at the forefront is their sponsors. If corporations with drew their ads these people would drift into oblivion. Public affairs programing turned 180 degrees in the 80's with the McLaughlin Group and Robert Novak when they introduced pay for access. Officials of the Regan administration would hold interviews with Mr. Novak and other reporters would have to pay to attend the new event. Corporate sponsors also made sure that those who supported their interest stayed on the air, the liberals were mere window dressing; with the extreme example being Fox's Hannity and Holmes. Thoughtful discussions were replaced by shouting matches that accomplished their goal of making politics distasteful for most citizens to the point of non-participation. The power of fringe groups are enhanced when the general pubic tunes out. This was the intended goal of the Rt wing and it succeeded for many years, until the rise of the blogs.

If you want to see the return of thoughtful political discourse you need only to watch the interview segments of the Daily Show.

Thank you, Dragutin Dimitrijevic, excellent response. And just remember everyone; at the end of the day clever foxes get to eat. and hedgehogs are just cute food with funny spines.

Such a coincidence. I originally read the hedgehog and fox analogy when I was a kid in a martial arts magazine and after leaving class last night I've began thinking about it again. In the article I read, the author agreed with the hedgehog ("know one technique very well") but after remembering it last night I saw that it was too near-sighted, I had to disagree with it.

What makes pundits appealing or seemingly worth paying attention to is -as the article says- the sense of "I'm right about this". That is the same thing that attracts women to men and people to a leader. It is a fact of human nature. Sadly, there isn't necessarily any substance behind that front. Case in point, Alex Castellanos was part of a panel on CNN this week and he said, in response to an argument by Paul Krugman (a Nobel Prize winning economist) that "economists don't know anything about the economy"... and he wasn't kidding!!! That is the type of absurdity most pundits (with the exception of Paul Begala, David Gergen, and even Pat Buchanan who is consistent) are reduced to.

Sounds like we have established that Myers-Briggs P types are better predictors than J types. This seems a bit simplistic!

Another point to bear in mind is most of these blathering heads that appear on television (cable news especially) are "professional guests" and they are represented by agents and PR people. Their managers are continually lobbying and promoting to get their clients booked on the cable "news" programs. The cable "news" programs are always desperate to fill air time hence the regular in-depth discussion of trivialities between the cable news reader and some management-company "expert." The things they say disappear into the ether and are usually forgotten by everyone involved, including the audience thirty seconds after the segment is finished and the program breaks for commercial.