Oh my, the constipated "culture" of the New York Times lays exposed in the wake of the departure of Nate Silver--
Nate Silver Went Against the Grain for Some at The Times - NYTimes.com
: " . . . I (Margaret Sullivan, NYT Public Editor) don’t think Nate Silver ever really fit into the Times culture and I think he was aware of that. He was, in a word, disruptive.
Much like the Brad Pitt character in the movie “Moneyball” disrupted the old model of how to scout baseball players, Nate disrupted the traditional model of how to cover politics. His entire probability-based way of looking at politics ran against the kind of political journalism that The Times specializes in: polling, the horse race, campaign coverage, analysis based on campaign-trail observation, and opinion writing, or “punditry,”
as he put it, famously describing it as “fundamentally useless.”
Of course, The Times is equally known for its in-depth and investigative reporting on politics. His approach was to work against the narrative of politics
– the “story”
– and that made him always interesting to read. For me, both of these approaches have value and can live together just fine. A number of traditional and well-respected Times journalists disliked his work. The first time I wrote about him
I suggested that print readers should have the same access to his writing that online readers were getting. I was surprised to quickly hear by e-mail from three high-profile Times political journalists, criticizing him and his work. They were also tough on me for seeming to endorse what he wrote, since I was suggesting that it get more visibility. . . ."(read more at link above)
One commenter: "Comments on fivethirtyeight today reflect the same ideological biases and bloviating that all the other commentary at the (New York) Times displays. "
more news below