http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/831/not-sticking-to-sports-the-right-move-for-espn
He basically writes a piece defending a bunch of stuff they do.
Way to "listen" to your critics.
"Whether or not you’re on board with the heavy focus on culture and politics, The Undefeated’s body of work is impressive."
Is that really the ombudsman's job? To tell us they are impressive? How is that defined, exactly?
Among those satisfied with The Undefeated is one very important client -- Skipper, who, when asked about the site’s progress, said he is “very happy. We have seen remarkable growth in the first 10 months.”
As long as Skipper likes it.
"The expansion beyond FiveThirtyEight’s core of sports and politics doesn’t take away from the strong work it still does on both fronts. On Sept. 15, David Wasserman wrote a piece explaining how Donald Trump could win the White House while losing the popular vote, which is, of course, exactly what happened. During primary season, Clare Malone wrote a terrific piece titled “Why Donald Trump?” that used data and strong reporting to explain what seemed unexplainable -- then and now -- to many voters."
Hey, the stats geeks could do basic math. They knew what the electoral college was. Congrats.
Did he bother to reference the piece where Nate Silver talked about how unlikely that was? Where he discussed that generally, the popular vote would rise with the candidate who began plucking enough states to take the elector college. Whither 2000?
Clare Malone's piece was "terrific", declares the impartial ombudsman.
"But it’s outside of sports and politics where FiveThirtyEight hopes to expand most aggressively. On the science front, the site has examined tornadoes, space sex, gender and math, wildfires and more."
The Worldwide Leader in . . . "space sex"?
"Like all sites that attempted to project the results of the 2016 presidential election, FiveThirtyEight was subject to strong criticism after Nov. 8, since, on that morning, it had given Trump only a 29 percent chance of winning the election. Although that was more of a chance than any other highly cited forecast gave him, it was indisputably south of 50 percent."
"FiveThirtyEight’s Micah Cohen says the site got more right in the election than it got credit for. “We basically said that Trump had a real shot at winning and that he would overperform in the Electoral College,” he said. “It’s always touchy because I’m sympathetic to people who only looked at the forecast. But if you read our coverage, I think we got the election right.”
That said, Cohen has heard the criticism and understands it. “We do take that seriously. There’s a lot of research that shows people don’t see probabilities well,” he said. “We are thinking about -- and will continue to think about -- how we can present forecasts so that 70 percent isn’t perceived as the same as 99 percent.”
Condescending much?
So, our forecast showed Trump with a better shot than most forecasts did, and even though we panned him at every turn in our chitty-chats, we deserve credit for manipulating our polls less-downward than our friends at CNN.
"Its Grantland site, despite strong content, a deeply loyal fan base and a considerable investment from ESPN, closed in 2015 after, as one ESPN source told me, never coming close to making a profit."
"The Undefeated has followed loosely the same formula as Grantland. It has amassed immense journalistic talent and been aggressive in its embrace of new storytelling forms."
Except, Grantland was good. How exactly does a website calculate profitability, when links from one site (ESPN) will take you to articles on another (Grantland)?
Are we really supposed to believe that the Undefeated is reaching a broader audience?
Anyway.
He basically writes a piece defending a bunch of stuff they do.
Way to "listen" to your critics.
"Whether or not you’re on board with the heavy focus on culture and politics, The Undefeated’s body of work is impressive."
Is that really the ombudsman's job? To tell us they are impressive? How is that defined, exactly?
Among those satisfied with The Undefeated is one very important client -- Skipper, who, when asked about the site’s progress, said he is “very happy. We have seen remarkable growth in the first 10 months.”
As long as Skipper likes it.
"The expansion beyond FiveThirtyEight’s core of sports and politics doesn’t take away from the strong work it still does on both fronts. On Sept. 15, David Wasserman wrote a piece explaining how Donald Trump could win the White House while losing the popular vote, which is, of course, exactly what happened. During primary season, Clare Malone wrote a terrific piece titled “Why Donald Trump?” that used data and strong reporting to explain what seemed unexplainable -- then and now -- to many voters."
Hey, the stats geeks could do basic math. They knew what the electoral college was. Congrats.
Did he bother to reference the piece where Nate Silver talked about how unlikely that was? Where he discussed that generally, the popular vote would rise with the candidate who began plucking enough states to take the elector college. Whither 2000?
Clare Malone's piece was "terrific", declares the impartial ombudsman.
"But it’s outside of sports and politics where FiveThirtyEight hopes to expand most aggressively. On the science front, the site has examined tornadoes, space sex, gender and math, wildfires and more."
The Worldwide Leader in . . . "space sex"?
"Like all sites that attempted to project the results of the 2016 presidential election, FiveThirtyEight was subject to strong criticism after Nov. 8, since, on that morning, it had given Trump only a 29 percent chance of winning the election. Although that was more of a chance than any other highly cited forecast gave him, it was indisputably south of 50 percent."
"FiveThirtyEight’s Micah Cohen says the site got more right in the election than it got credit for. “We basically said that Trump had a real shot at winning and that he would overperform in the Electoral College,” he said. “It’s always touchy because I’m sympathetic to people who only looked at the forecast. But if you read our coverage, I think we got the election right.”
That said, Cohen has heard the criticism and understands it. “We do take that seriously. There’s a lot of research that shows people don’t see probabilities well,” he said. “We are thinking about -- and will continue to think about -- how we can present forecasts so that 70 percent isn’t perceived as the same as 99 percent.”
Condescending much?
So, our forecast showed Trump with a better shot than most forecasts did, and even though we panned him at every turn in our chitty-chats, we deserve credit for manipulating our polls less-downward than our friends at CNN.
"Its Grantland site, despite strong content, a deeply loyal fan base and a considerable investment from ESPN, closed in 2015 after, as one ESPN source told me, never coming close to making a profit."
"The Undefeated has followed loosely the same formula as Grantland. It has amassed immense journalistic talent and been aggressive in its embrace of new storytelling forms."
Except, Grantland was good. How exactly does a website calculate profitability, when links from one site (ESPN) will take you to articles on another (Grantland)?
Are we really supposed to believe that the Undefeated is reaching a broader audience?
Anyway.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Espn will be a waste land in 5 years.
