Pater Familias » Journalism

AN ENGLISH DESCRIPTION OF A MIDWESTERN ACCENT.

Philip — Mon, 21 May 2012 00:56:41 +0000

AN ENGLISH DESCRIPTION OF A MIDWESTERN ACCENT. In the Financial Times (May 15), Hal Weitzman says about a Wisconsin politician: “[He] speaks in a heavily nasal Wisconsin accent that resembles a permanent cold.” My first reaction was that some of … Continue reading →

5% TO 20%—THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT “OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES”.

Philip — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:22:12 +0000

5% TO 20%—THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT “OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES”. I am encouraged by the estimates of the percentage of findings from statistical studies that can be replicated. The estimates of 5% to 20% for multiple regression studies are higher than I would have expected, and the figure of 80% for randomized controlled experiments is heartening as well. Observational studies are much cheaper than controlled trials (tens of thousands of dollars for a study versus millions of dollars for a randomized controlled trial.) Observational studies generally serve a different purpose—formulating hypotheses and checking leads rather than testing whether a proposition is true.

The “bad news” about both kinds of statistical studies comes about because the scientific process is slower and less accurate than people think. Problems develop because results of trials are almost always reported without a caveat. If people were aware that in general only 80% of controlled studies and 5% to 20% of observational studies can be replicated, finding these facts out would not be considered bad news.

5% TO 20%—THE BAD NEWS ABOUT “OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES”.

Philip — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:21:37 +0000

5% TO 20%—THE BAD NEWS ABOUT “OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES”. Gautam Naik had an article in the Wall Street Journal (May 3) headlined “Analytical Trend Troubles Scientists”. The troubling trend is that “observational studies often use different methodologies and arrive at different conclusions.” (“Observational studies” are one ones in which “scientists often use fast computers, statistical software and large medical data sets to analyze information previously collected by others”. I think of them as multiple regression studies.) Estimates are that there were almost 80,000 observational studies published across all scientific fields from 1990 to 2000 and over 260,000 published from 2001 to 2011. The article cites Dr. John Ioannidis as estimating that observational studies in general can be replicated only 20% of the time versus 80% of the time for controlled random trials. Another expert estimates the replication rate for observational studies at 5% to 10%.

THE SIMPSONS ON “THE RIGHT TO EDIT” (COMMENT).

Philip — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:48:27 +0000

THE SIMPSONS ON “THE RIGHT TO EDIT” (COMMENT). I want to call attention to this clip from the Simpson’s which Lee Bryant cited in a comment to my post on “THE RIGHT TO EDIT”. As so often, the Simpsons are … Continue reading →

THE “RIGHT TO EDIT”.

Philip — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:55:59 +0000

THE “RIGHT TO EDIT”. Lawyers check quotes carefully and indicate changes to texts with brackets and ellipsis periods. Scholars do the same things. It’s time consuming and not enjoyable. So some 15 years ago, I was surprised—-and a little envious—to read a report in our local newspapers on a speech to a local group by a high-ranking person in the news division of one of what were then three television networks. In the speech, he explained—and advocated for—the news organization’s “right to edit”. I learned over time, this included the right to match answers to different questions and to shorten quotations without disclosure. Peter Funt, whose experience with his father’s worthy show Candid Camera gives him familiarity with editing, had an article in the Wall Street Journal (April 9) about good and bad live interviews. He notes that newsmakers prefer live interviews. Television journalists prefer pre-recorded interviews “because editing allows reporters to clean up and even re-record questions to their advantage, while making cuts that are sometimes to the guest’s disadvantage.”

Television journalists value the power this gives them. Funt quotes Barbara Walters: “Whoever holds the scissors ultimately controls the message.”

“A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”?

Philip — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:39:23 +0000

“A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? The discussion in the Guardian reflects the controversy over Pinker’s book. Andrew Brown in his review calls the book a “comfort blanket for the smug”. I think the book is important for the big question it asks—are things getting worse?— whether or not you agree with Pinker’s conclusions. The answer each person gives to the big question forms part of everybody’s world view. David Runciman’s review is balanced. The comparison is between a violent past and a violent present. The stronger part of Pinker’s argument is his contention that, as Runciman says: “the past was a far nastier place than we might have imagined.” The second part of Pinker’s argument, as Runciman puts it, is that “the present is far nicer than we might have noticed.” The horrendous events of the 20th century make this argument controversial. One novel approach in support of his claim is that “Pinker argues that the violence of the 20th century is best understood as a series of random spasms rather than part of a trend.” Another argument is based on the increase in instances of humanity of the kind that Nick and Dick Weisfelder point out. Of course, we know even less about past instances of humanity than we do about past violence.

MORE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF PROBABILITIES.

Philip — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:26:03 +0000

MORE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF PROBABILITIES. I was of course pleased to see a report by a good journalist which expressed the opinions of informed professionals. The article gives a useful idea of the range of uncertainty about what will happen with the euro. The same week, as this article in the Economist reports, the Federal Reserve Bank began publishing the predictions of all the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (the main policy making body of the Fed). The accompanying chart shows the great divergence of the 17 policymakers. For 2014, 5 of them think the appropriate federal funds rate will be greater or equal to 2%; 9 think it will be less than 1%. In the context of extremely low interest rates, the predictions reflect considerable uncertainty as to the course of the next three years.

A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT?

Philip — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:24:19 +0000

A 25% CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? In the Financial Times for January 27, Gillian Tett had the kind of article that I would like to see more of. She apparently talked to a number of senior bankers in Davos Switzerland for the big meeting and asked for their probability estimates for the breakup of the euro. The estimates are in the 20% to 25% range. The chance of the eurozone “muddling through” is thought to be about 70%. Kids, when I posted here almost two years ago about the possibility of the euro being threatened, the idea was startling enough to me that I reminded you (and myself) that we had had euros in our wallets.

ARE THE IOWA CAUCUSES UNREPRESENTATIVE?

Philip — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:18:03 +0000

ARE THE IOWA CAUCUSES UNREPRESENTATIVE? Since the Iowa caucuses assumed enormous importance in 1972, they have been presented as examples of grassroots democracy and therefore worthy of their enormous importance. This interview with a “shrewdly cynical professional” presents a view of the caucuses that I have not seen before. Says the cynical professional: “You gotta have money to get the people out….It’s a muscle caucus, not a message place….You need money to hire the guys who are well connected to make sure the right people get to the caucus night. It’s not a vote; it’s a paid event.” John Batchelor, who posted about the interview, summarizes what he learned from the interview: “Iowa is not about polling, ads, or popularity; it’s about hiring agents for the long haul in order to corral caucus attenders for a bitter winter night.” In my post yesterday, I focused on some indications that a candidate could stay viable for a long time without a lot of money. The Iowa caucuses may be a reason that early money is needed to win a nomination.

WHY YOU CAN’T SEE THE WHOLE FOOTBALL GAME.

Philip — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:12:53 +0000

WHY YOU CAN’T SEE THE WHOLE FOOTBALL GAME. Reed Albergotti explains why the National Football League will not let fans see the All 22 version of the game, even after the game is over: they do not want to open players, teams and coaches up to more criticism. He also quotes a spokesman for the league to the effect that it will be a long time before the league changes its policy. There is already, of course, lots of criticism. Perhaps the league doesn’t mind that criticism as much because it is uninformed.

NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOOTBALL GAME.

Philip — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:11:04 +0000

NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOOTBALL GAME. I have wondered for over 30 years why television broadcasts of professional football games show only the part of the field near the line of scrimmage. The camera follows the ball, but on passing plays, which are more than half the plays, the camera shows mainly the pass blocking and not what the wide receivers and the defensive secondary are doing—about one third of the players on the field. For example, it is impossible to see any kind of zone defense. Reed Albergotti had an article in the Wall Street Journal (November 4) which explained that there is indeed a distant camera angle in the National Football League that shows all 22 players and is called the “All 22″. Bill Parcells is quoted as saying that what fans see on television is only a “fragment” of what happens in a game. However, the “All 22″ is kept strictly away from the fans.

ALBERT PUJOLS SHOWS LEADERSHIP.

Philip — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:52:08 +0000

ALBERT PUJOLS SHOWS LEADERSHIP. Over the years, some of the most violent criticism I have read in a newspaper results from a failure by an athlete to give an interview. The latest example followed an error in the ninth inning of the second game of the World Series by Albert Pujols, the star of the Saint Louis Cardinals. The error cost the Cardinals the game. Pujols did not appear for questioning by the media after the game. This Yahoo article is typical of the reaction of sports writers to not getting an interview. Not doing so is often described by sports writers in terms more applicable to a serial killer. The article says that “Pujols is not accountable to the media. This is not about that.” The article then goes in for sports writer’s cliches about how errors are a result of moral failings. Pujols “spit the bit in a crucial game.” It was “bush league”. Pujols displayed “zero leadership.”

I have never been interested in postgame questioning of players. The questions are usually of the “How does it feel to lose this game [or win this game]. This yahoo article by a different writer notes the real problem: “leaving reporters to think up their own stuff.”

In the next game of the Series, Pujols hit 3 home runs and led his team to victory while setting a World Series record for most extra bases in a game.