Maggie Haberman, Nate Silver Spar Over Whose 2016 Coverage Was Worse
Image by Getty Images
By Aiden Pink September 26, 2017
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
Contact Aiden Pink at [email protected] or on Twitter, @aidenpink
This is a moment of great uncertainty. Here’s what you can do about it.
We hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, we’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s independent Jewish news. All donations are still being matched by the Forward Board - up to $100,000 until April 24.
This is a moment of great uncertainty for the news media, for the Jewish people, and for our sacred democracy. It is a time of confusion and declining trust in public institutions. An era in which we need humans to report facts, conduct investigations that hold power to account, tell stories that matter and share honest discourse on all that divides us.
With no paywall or subscriptions, the Forward is entirely supported by readers like you. Every dollar you give is invested in the future of the Forward — and telling the American Jewish story fully and fairly.
The Forward doesn’t rely on funding from institutions like governments or your local Jewish federation. There are thousands of readers like you who give us $18 or $36 or $100 each month or year.
Support our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.
