idea: we force op-ed writers to place their takes on a quasi-prediction market and whoever gets the most correct gets to write more op-eds - ThreadSky

sharonk.bsky.social • 8 hours ago

idea: we force op-ed writers to place their takes on a quasi-prediction market and whoever gets the most correct gets to write more op-eds

Reposted from Jake Grumbach

lol

Comments

mattferrel.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Agree, but then we’ll get op-eds with even more weasel words and contradictions so writers can they can claim they were correct no matter what happens

mattferrel.bsky.social•8 hours ago

But I would love to see a reliable 3rd party do this anyway

jortscity.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Unironically yes, there should be a list of testable claims at the top of every op-ed and all the writers' profiles should display their overall score across their entire body of work

segyges.bsky.social•8 hours ago

this is the path to Nate Silver

susanmct.bsky.social•7 hours ago

I like this idea. The carrot approach.

dutchtreat.bsky.social•5 hours ago

Didn't somebody check pundits on the accuracy of their predictions years ago? IIRC, Paul Krugman was the only one that scored "good".

bachpropagate.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Based and medlock-pilled.

derpgently.bsky.social•5 hours ago

Oooohh... I like that. At the very least I want a running tally next to their oped that give a running 3 year tally of takes as correct/unclear/false, adjudicated by the Editorial Board. You could obviously change papers if you disagree with the board, but at least you have an ump to call it.

aelkus.bsky.social•8 hours ago

i think that the point of op-ed pages is to take things that are already considered to be received wisdom and restate them back to the reader

aelkus.bsky.social•8 hours ago

at the time Zakaria wrote the first one, there was the "vibe shift" and people were optimistic about DOGE. In the second column, people soured on it

aelkus.bsky.social•8 hours ago

if that's the function of it and everyone is clear about it, I don't really see the problem

aelkus.bsky.social•8 hours ago

the issue right now is the second part -- not being explicit that there is no real "opinion" in the opinion pages

mutual-a.bsky.social•6 hours ago

we can break nate silver's brain even more, i believe in us

sharonk.bsky.social•8 hours ago

this would basically bankrupt shadi hamid's ability to write takes

rephemeral.bsky.social•8 hours ago

I don’t like to be so glibly cynical, but punditry really does seem a pure a subset of the entertainment industry

the goal is to type out buzzy/somewhat plausible stuff in the moment

mrnelson007.bsky.social•8 hours ago

I feel like we'd rapidly be left with like... Serwer and Bouie and no one else. Which honestly is a net win.

redwizard-404.bsky.social•8 hours ago

dixondaver.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Thomas Friedman would have been driven to penury by 2010.

And we'd all have been better for it.

orviston.bsky.social•8 hours ago

True, but that's not exactly a downside

lastdaysotheweimar.bsky.social•6 hours ago

8 pages of brynn tannehill op Eds a day seems like too many

themjl.bsky.social•8 hours ago

It'd be cool if some service could make a browser plugin that reported a sort of FICO score for whichever pundit you're reading, except it's an "accuracy score" based on their real-life track record.

"Free markets" are supposed to serve this function. But media's not really a "free" market, is it?

joeuchill.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Teacher says every time someone calls to quantify expert forecasting quality, Philip Tetlock gets his wings.

althistorian.bsky.social•8 hours ago

Alastair Reynolds had a society in his Revelation Space books where those who votes turned out to be right in the long run got an extra vote. Still not sure exactly how you'd rate that objectively, but I'd love to have reviews for op-ed writers.

zetsubo.bsky.social•8 hours ago

the least correct we put in a dunk tank and get people to throw pies at them and other such tomfoolery

felixt.bsky.social•8 hours ago

The best political commentator in the UK is Stephen Bush at the FT simply because he does yearly "what I got right and what I got wrong" pieces and reflects on what he can learn from it all rather than just keep trucking along writing the same bad opinions like practically everybody else.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply