Nate Silver has left the New York Times (moving to ESPN and ABC). Considering that he was very accurate in predicting election results, you would think they’d want to keep him, but apparently they aren’t that concerned. It seems that by proving that punditry isn’t very accurate, while analysis of facts is better, he rubbed some folks the wrong way, according to their public editor:
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.
And now he’s gone. That tells you what the Times is interested in. I suppose if you’re a pundit, you could be annoyed at the loss of face involved in being beat to the truth by some young whippersnapper who likes “facts”. It turns out the Grey Lady loves her pundits more than her accuracy.
Well, I’ll be following Nate on ABC when he gets the political stuff going. But the NYTimes has left me only with Paul Krugman as a real information source, and yet they want me to pay for their stuff. We shall see, Grey Lady, we shall see…