Most-read posts of 2011

Since everyone is doing year-end lists, here are my ten most-read posts of 2011. Interestingly, two are posts that still draw significant traffic through links and Google:

1. The disappearing Tax Foundation blog post (5/16/11)

2. The problems with the Groseclose/Milyo study of media bias (12/22/05)

3. Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter? (11/10/11)

4. Peggy Noonan reads Obama's mind (8/23/11)

5. The continued dominance of the white quarterback (7/31/05)

6. Do early-stage candidate favorability ratings matter? (2/16/11)

7. Beware early general election trial heats (9/14/11)

8. A Thomas Friedman movie cliché retrospective (4/7/11)

9. Are the Republican presidential candidates weak? (2/15/11)

10. The use and abuse of bar graphs (5/19/11)

Comments

[Metrichead]

On black QBs: one of the things that nobody posted about the racial composite of college and NFL QBs is the journey that one goes through to get to the next level. I do agree with the one poster that race plays the biggest factor into a lot of coaches/recruiters/programs' decisions to use white QBs over black QBs.

Everyone knows to get to the NFL at whatever position you play, you've gotta be the best of the best. You’re the 1% (and I was definitely the 99% by the time I was in junior high). I won't rehash what we already know.

But it is not uncommon the twists and turns that players go through to get to the next level, be it high school to college and then to the pros. Many players will change positions throughout their careers. Lineman will switch sides from offense to defense, move from guard to tackle, or defensive end to defensive tackle or to linebacker. It happens all the time. If you played linebacker in high school, it's plausible some recruiter might ask you to come play at his school as a safety and you'll go along because of the doors it'll open up (NFL, free tuition, girls).

A lot of this has to do with size and skill set. What worked in college doesn’t always work in the pros – note that there are a lot of Heisman trophy winners who didn’t excel in the NFL. A lot of the gifts QBs have are the same gifts wide receivers have – good hands, good feet, speed, and ability to read defensive coverage. But some of the systems that QBs play in at a college level are gimmicky, like the spread offense, and won’t work in the NFL. They don’t work because they’re too simplistic and an NFL defense would exploit every flaw easily. And because they’re not very complex – they don’t require having to make many reads (watching what the defense does) – a lot of the playmaking is due to athleticism and not the mental decisions.

Going back to what I said about getting recruited, a lot of these recruiters go into the inner city schools that are predominantly black, and they tell some of these QBs that if they come here they can play wide receiver, or tight end, or something on defense, because there can only be one QB on the field at a time, but there can be two, but as many as five WRs, three or four LBs, six DBs, and so on, and off they go to college learning a new system and a new position.

Sorry if this post is so long, but it’s something to consider.

[Metrichead]

George McGovern was considered a contender for President in 1992? Really?

[David in Cal]

Regarding the Groseclose/Milyo study of media bias, Brendan questioned

1. Whether the G/M measure of bias had some flaws, and

2. Whether the final average properly weighted the data points

ISTM that these two questions can be raised regarding many useful models. E..g., consider the model used to obtain a worldwide average temperature from weather station data. The Urban Heat Island Effect and other problems with specific stations are potential flaws in the input. And, the final averaging gives much more weight to stations near unoccupied areas, a questionable procedure. Nevertheless, most feel that the weaknesses in the temperature calculation don't entirely invalidate the result. E.g., The recent BEST Study has been universally well-received, despite these two flaws.

I think G/M did some things well. They found an objective measure of bias that was not unreasonable. They computed the degree of bias (as per their definition) for a very large sample, and arrived at an overall total. Their total may well be reasonably accurate, even if though some of the data points are questionable and even though other methods of averaging were possible.

IMHO a bigger problem with G/M is that they were too objective. To see the full extent of bias requires judgment of how various acts by one side would have been covered if the other side had committed equivalent acts. E.g., these ten improper acts by the Obama Administration in 2011 each received limited media coverage. I judge that these acts would have received much more media coverage and media criticism if they'd been committed by a Republican Administration.

[Farnk Star]

"I judge that these acts would have received much more media coverage and media criticism if they'd been committed by a Republican Administration."

Sure, because that assessment represents your own bias.

When a Republican administration is criticized you feel its overly harsh. With a Democratic administration the criticism can't be harsh (or frequent) enough.

Your bias doesn't just relate to your ability to make an objective assessment - it relates to your actual ability to observe. So for you there will always be a liberal media bias, just as there exists a "pro global warming conspiracy".

[David in Cal]

You have a point, Farnk Star. There's no perfect way to measure media bias. One alternative to a subjective study is the kind of flawed objective study that Brendan criticized.

Conceivably someone could create a very comprehensive list of how various misdeeds were covered and devise point systems for how dire each deed was, how much coverage it got in various types of media, and how scathing the criticism. Then they could assign a numerical Bias Score to each election and use that figure in their statistical analysis of election predictors.

IMHO political scientists ought to be doing this type of study. Media bias is a significant factor and its magnitude can vary a lot from one election to another. E.g., Bob Somerby's blog DailyHowler.com has argued persuasively that Al Gore got much worse than average treatment from the media. Most conservatives believe that Obama got unusually favorable coverage.

Re global warming "conspiracy": It's objectively true that a number of climate scientists conspired to prevent skeptics from seeing their data. These efforts are shown in the leaked "Climategate" e-mails, where sientists said they were going to hide certain information and encouraged their peers to do the same. I think "conspiracy" is the right word, since they were working jointly, in secret and probably violated Freedom of Information laws that apply in the US and in the UK. (However, the fact that they withheld data doesn't mean that their conclusions are wrong. That's a separate question.)

[Frank Star]

"Climategate" was not much more than several scientists expressing their annoyance at those who used requests for information as what they judged to be principally a type of harassment.

Critics of the scientific consensus (such as yourself) who said the issue involved an attempt to "hide certain information" were shown to be wrong, as there actually was no material "hidden information".

Your focus on the offense of not responding to requests for data, but your disregard the offense of hacking into e-mail systems and releasing the personal correspondences, seems to be another example of bias.

One can actually make a counter case that there was a "Climategate conspiracy" conspiracy.