As all memos should be, this one is reasonably short. It asks a simple, straightforward question of The NY Times' management. Where the hell is your fact-checking crew?
Yesterday the paper published a video piece titled "Harris or Trump? The Prophet of Presidential Elections Is Ready to Call the Race." The prophet is American University historian Allan Lichtman, "who’s been dubbed the Nostradamus of presidential election predictions for his near-perfect 40-year track record."
He does have a good record. I'm not disputing that. But The Times then took it further, writing in its video lead-in that "Mr. Lichtman was among the few to accurately predict Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 (earning him a Sharpie-scribbled note from the candidate lauding the 'GOOD CALL!')."
Half of the statement is true — Trump's note. The other half is laughably untrue, although The Times and innumerable other publications persist in claiming its wonder-striking uniqueness in the field of political prognostication.
Lichtman did call 2016 correctly — sort of. He said Trump would win. To our never-ending, gut-wrenchingly painful regret, he did indeed. But Lichtman's prediction was that Trump would win the popular vote and therefore the election, as though that alone determined the presidential victor.
Trump, as we all know, failed to win the popular vote. So Lichtman got that wrong. With thanks to the Founders, the American South and racism, he crept into the Oval Office only through Republicans' backdoor labeled "Electoral College." The Prophet, the Nostradamus of presidential election predictions and historian seems to have somehow forgotten that tidbit of ghastly reality. He not only botched his popular vote prediction, he neglected to take into account what actually determines the presidential winner.
Which is like, well, kinda important.
I gather The NY Times — the paper of record — either doesn't care or doesn't know what's important about little details in a prognostication piece, such as Lichtman failed to "accurately predict" the 2016 election. That unalterable fact is on other publications' record, although the others are exceedingly few.
Maybe The Times' fact-checking crew is nipping at the bottle way, way too often. I have no problem with that, as long as they nip after they've done a few bits of fact-checking before noon.
Comments