Of all the lessons the mainstream media should have learned over the past four years, one of them is inexcusably obvious: We're bad at predictions.

Who can forget poll analyses, the infographic needles, the endless columns and pundit panels that confidently projected that Hillary Clinton would be the next president?

In fact, it was that very certainty that drove much of the damaging and excessive coverage of her email practices. (Since she was all-but-certainly the next president, went the flawed thinking, we should get started now on showing we'll be tough on her.)

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank was so sure, in late 2015, that Donald Trump would fail to get the Republican nomination that he promised to eat his printed column if he was wrong. (An honorable man, he followed through.)

But my colleague was far from alone. And the following year, most media people were stunned by Trump's winning the presidency.

And yet, we roll on today, with very little having changed.

The Iowa caucuses, according to many a commentator, surely would come down to a fight between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. As we know now, it didn't work out that way: Biden finished a lackluster fourth and the photo finish with Sanders involved Pete Buttigieg.

Oh, and surely, we heard many times, voter turnout at the caucuses would be high, signaling the voters' intense desire to replace President Trump with a Democrat. Well, that didn't happen either. Turnout was flat.

Journalists - reporters and opinionators alike - just aren't very good at this. Yet, they go on doing it, in part because there's so little accountability in political journalism.

"There's no penalty for being wrong. You can just blithely go on making another evidence-free prediction with no consequences," Columbia University journalism professor William Grueskin said.

He added that it wouldn't work that way in, say, business reporting: If you predicted that "XYZ Corp will lose $100 million" and then XYZ reported a $250 million profit, "much of your audience would have a hard time taking you seriously again."

Part of the problem is our endless desire to frame politics as a horserace. Rather than focus on what's most important to the public interest, political coverage focuses far too heavily on who's up and who's down - an elusive metric that requires data like polls and fundraising.

But these things are far from a reliable basis for prediction. What's worse, many journalists don't understand basic notions underlying polling, as data-oriented journalist Nate Silver has emphasized over the years: "Media understanding about probability, margin of error and uncertainty is very poor."

If a candidate has an 80 percent chance of winning a race, no one should be surprised if he or she loses. The use of predictive phrases like "all but inevitable" should be confined to instances where the chances of a candidate's election are more like 98 percent, he says. (Silver has become more careful since he infamously stated during the 2016 presidential primary season that Donald Trump's candidacy shouldn't be taken seriously. When proved wrong, he followed up by publishing a mea culpa about what went wrong in his thinking, and he was more accurate than most about Trump's chances in the general election.)

Silver's organization, FiveThirtyEight, remains solidly in the horserace business but with a greater effort now to explain probability and to resist the urge to walk out onto flimsy limbs.

As for me, I'm officially done with making predictions, after flubbing one in mid-2017. New York magazine asked me, along with 12 others - journalists, academics, and political types - to predict whether President Trump would make it through his first term.

Some respondents posited that he'd be gone by now, for various reasons; others were convinced that he would survive and thrive. I managed to get one thing right: that Trump would make it through his first term, but I predicted that he would choose not to run again - and that New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand would become the first female president. (I'll note in my own defense that this was before she led the charge that brought about Al Franken's resignation as the junior senator from Minnesota.)

Since then, I refuse to predict - not in print, not in interviews, and not even in informal conversations with friends and family members.

In a recent MSNBC appearance, the author Anand Giridharadas suggested that, given their generally lousy records, media people should quit the prognosticating game. He put it simply and correctly: "I don't think it is our job as journalists to predict."

As we head deeper into the presidential primary season, with all of its temptations, it's high time to heed that advice.

(1) comment

Gary Drost

What Ms. Sullivan and so many other MSM journalists fail to admit is their outward prejudice when it comes to reporting. It’s so obvious that it’s impossible for them to be anything close to “fair and balanced”. Just look at who owns virtually all the publishing companies and TV networks in America – liberal Democrats. I once had a disagreement with an opinion piece the editor of my local paper published, and I wrote a letter in reply. The paper printed half of my letter. Most notably, what they printed wasn’t the meat of my argument. When I asked the editor why my letter was so severely edited (IMO, censored), his reply was, “…space, grammar, wording”, etc. Really? My letter was grammatically perfect, and it was one of two letters published that day. The rest of the page was filled with ads and more editorials. When I asked him how someone like me can get their opinion printed in the paper, he replied, “If you want to publish your opinion, then go buy your own newspaper.” He explained that statement by saying that newspapers print what the publishers (owners) want, and they (editors and reporters) must comply or find work elsewhere. I thought that statement very telling and a potentially dangerous thing, politically. That thought is confirmed by how prejudicial the MSM is in print and on the air. Since the MSM is almost entirely controlled by the Left, what the public reads in print and hears and sees on TV is a totally one-sided point of view – liberal. A word that comes to mind is “censorship”. Is the Media’s purpose to slant articles to their POV? Forget about the facts, just print what the publisher wants the public to know? Is that what freedom of the press means to them? It appears so. To be fair, I think the Right does pretty much the same thing, only they have such a small part of the “journalistic pie” that it virtually goes unnoticed. One could expand this to include the entertainment world, as all the production companies are owned by liberals, and most producers, directors and actors are liberals. So, what we read, and see and hear on the airwaves, has a decidedly liberal slant. The word for that is “indoctrination”. Does any of this ring a bell, politically? Think, Socialism.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.