It is true that there is a liberal bias in the media

Nate Silver has written a very good article about liberal media bias and it is consistent with what has been saying since before the election.

So did journalists in Washington and London make the apocryphal Pauline Kael mistake, refusing to believe that Trump or Brexit could win because nobody they knew was voting for them? That?s not quite what Trende was arguing. Instead, it?s that political experts?aren?t a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment. Once a consensus view is established, it tends to reinforce itself until and unless there?s very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber.

I recently reread James Surowiecki?s book ?The Wisdom of Crowds? which, despite its name, spends as much time contemplating the shortcomings of such wisdom as it does celebrating its successes. Surowiecki argues?that crowds usually make good predictions when they satisfy these four conditions:

  1. Diversity of opinion. ?Each person should have private information, even if it?s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.?
  2. Independence. ?People?s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them.?
  3. Decentralization. ?People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.?
  4. Aggregation. ?Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.? ??

Political journalism scores highly on the fourth condition, aggregation. While Surowiecki usually has something like a financial or betting market in mind when he refers to ?aggregation,? the broader idea is that there?s some way for individuals to exchange their opinions instead of keeping them to themselves. And my gosh, do political journalists have a lot of ways to share their opinions with one another, whether through their columns, at major events such as the political conventions or, especially, through Twitter.

But those other three conditions? Political journalism fails miserably along those dimensions.

This is not unusual, it is the sort of group think our own political journalists have in New Zealand. Remember the famous claim by Katie Bradford that no matter what they did or said the polls refused to move against National?

Silver looks at each of those four points:

The political diversity of journalists is not very strong, either. As of 2013, only 7 percent of them identified as Republicans (although only 28 percent called themselves Democrats with the majority saying they were independents). And although it?s not a perfect approximation ? in most newsrooms, the people who issue endorsements are not the same as the ones who do reporting ? there?s reason to think that the industry was particularly out of sync with Trump. Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump. By comparison, 46 percent of newspapers to endorse either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney endorsed Romney in 2012. Furthermore, as the media has become less representative of right-of-center views ? and as conservatives have rebelled against the political establishment ? there?s been an increasing and perhaps self-reinforcing cleavage between conservative news and opinion outlets such as Breitbart and the rest of the media.

Although it?s harder to measure, I?d also argue that there?s a lack of diversity when it comes to skill sets and methods of thinking in political journalism. Publications such as Buzzfeed or (the now defunct) get a lot of shade from traditional journalists when they do things that challenge conventional journalistic paradigms. But a lot of traditional journalistic practices are done by rote or out of habit, such as routinely granting anonymity to staffers to discuss campaign strategy even when there isn?t much journalistic merit in it. Meanwhile, speaking from personal experience, I?ve found the reception of ?data journalists? by traditional journalists to be unfriendly, although there have been exceptions.

Try being a blogger…and another so-called journalist is out there blackmailing other journalists into not talking to you while fencing your stolen materials for his own profit.

Independence? This is just as much of a problem. Crowds can be wise when people do a lot of thinking for themselves before coming together to exchange their views. But since at least the days of ?The Boys on the Bus,? political journalism has suffered from a pack mentality. Events such as conventions and debates literally gather thousands of journalists together in the same room; attend one of these events, and you can almost smell the conventional wisdom being manufactured in real time. (Consider how a consensus formed that Romney won the first debate in 2012 when it had barely even started, for instance.) Social media ? Twitter in particular ? can amplify these information cascades, with a single tweet receiving hundreds of thousands of impressions and shaping the way entire issues are framed. As a result, it can be largely arbitrary which storylines gain traction and which ones don?t. What seems like a multiplicity of perspectives might just be one or two, duplicated many times over.

We see this all the time with the press gallery. The clearest recent example is the group-think that saw Annette King faked out of the Labour party?deputy spot in favour of Jacinda Ardern.

All things considered, then, the conditions of political journalism are poor for crowd wisdom and ripe for groupthink. So ? what to do about it, then?

Initiatives to increase decentralization would help, although they won?t necessarily be easy. Increased subscription revenues at newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post is an encouraging sign for journalism, but a revival of local and regional newspapers ? or a more sustainable business model for independent blogs ? would do more to reduce groupthink in the industry.

This is why we’ve moved to a subscription model that gives readers a benefit (No ads). This will be extended to include additional options for increased subscription levels like bronze, silver,?gold and platinum.

That leaves independence. In some ways the best hope for a short-term fix might come from an attitudinal adjustment: Journalists should recalibrate themselves to be more skeptical of the consensus of their peers. That?s because a position that seems to have deep backing from the evidence may really just be a reflection from the echo chamber. You should be looking toward how much evidence there is for a particular position as opposed to how many people hold that position: Having 20 independent pieces of evidence that mostly point in the same direction might indeed reflect a powerful consensus, while having 20 like-minded people citing the same warmed-over evidence is much less powerful. Obviously this can be taken too far and in most fields, it?s foolish (and annoying) to constantly doubt the market or consensus view. But in a case like politics where the conventional wisdom can congeal so quickly ? and yet has so often been wrong ? a certain amount of contrarianism can go a long way.

That last paragraph should explain to readers why I no longer belong to a political party, why I am beholden to no one or anyone. It also explains why I am not a sycophant to any party or politician. I call things how I see them and I am often contrarian until I am proved right and others follow in my footsteps. I owe it to my readers to continue to do this no matter how uncomfortable my thoughts and words make you feel.