Maggie Haberman, Nate Silver Spar Over Whose 2016 Coverage Was Worse
Two of the most prominent political observers in the country got into a Twitter tiff on Tuesday over whose coverage of the 2016 presidential election was more misleading and inaccurate.
It started when Nate Silver—the former New York Times statistical wunderkind who left in 2013 to run his own ESPN-backed website, 538—noted a Haberman report on the Trump White House’s use of private emails, contrasting it with the Times’ wall-to-wall coverage of similar issues for Hillary Clinton:
The story is written in the passive voice. But Clinton’s emails didn’t *just happen* to become a huge story. The NYT was a huge reason why.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 26, 2017
Haberman hit back by mocking the pollster’s recent track record on political predictions:
It’s this keen understanding of media and politics that you demonstrated with your own modeling https://t.co/IFV9lrE5Ku— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 26, 2017
But Silver responded by arguing that he had actually predicted the election better than the Times and other prognosticators:
I guess I’m obliged to point out that our model & our reproting gave Trump a way better chance than you guys did. https://t.co/mbr5z9wdvy— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 26, 2017
Haberman ended the tete-a-tete by criticizing Silver for “trolling”:
Things are always more nuanced and complicated than your trolling tweets of your former employer. That’s the point https://t.co/ApJ6WrT4sM— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 26, 2017
This story "Maggie Haberman, Nate Silver Fight Over 2016 Coverage" was written by Aiden Pink.