Five-Thirty-What?

 Disappointing indeed.

Congratulations must go to the Times for landing such an amazing analyst.  This really hurts:
 
"On the one hand, I very much see what we are doing as a type of journalism, in the sense that it consists of doing original research on a timely basis to help inform the public discourse. Thus, the Times' unflinching commitment to quality journalism makes for a natural fit, and I expect that the relationship will evolve in exciting ways as FiveThirtyEight is incorporated into a "traditional" newsroom setting."
 
Ouch.  Hard to know where to start.  It's like if St. Francis had kissed the Pope's feet instead of the other way around.

We'll know the thing is rotten if we start seeing snap polls on "Are the Obama administration's job offers to Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff impeachable offenses?"

Disappointed I am.

Nate has repeatedly demonstrated a firm commitment to his idea of what 583's mission is, and I doubt he would have executed this deal if he thought the NYT would compromise that.

I expect the same illuminating analysis, just in a different place, and maybe enhanced with some of the amazing infographics that the NYT website is known for.

So it thinks, "Hey, let's get some hip people! And that will translate into more sales because everybody will follow them!"

Their subscription service (and their thinking) didn't work out too well the last time they tried it, but, now, it seems they think everybody is dying to read the NYTimes on their iPhones and iPads. Two million iPads out there, and the publishers are probably drooling at what they perceive as a cash cow.

When you have to read everything but the NYT to get the truth about a world or national event, and even regular schmoes are starting to realize it, it should give them pause.

Maybe we won't have that war with Iran, because no one will be paying for the propaganda.

@ Alexa, I think you are totally right. This move is to try to attract people from the blogosphere into the Murdoch/Jobs coalition (it makes me sick, see http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100603/tc_afp/usitmediamurdochcomputerappl...),  and this move to bring Nate into the fold is precisely that. Bet they're offering an arm and a leg, but we all know that if Slim has invested in it, it is because he will get more out of it than he will put in.

True, the conventional press is deteriorating (see the number of journalists laid off every year now), but still the cachet of the New York Times is still worth something. As long as Nate remembers it's temporary-and maybe he's banking on it-he can still get a lot out of the connection.

First of all, of course is money and perhaps some benefits like health insurance and the like which is hard to do when you're a blogger. Secondly, he gets even more exposure to people who may not have heard of him otherwise, which is a cachet that he can take with him when the Times does downsize again.

As for intellectual integrity, one thing the Times needs to remember is that they are hiring somebody with an established following already, and if they push his buttons too much, he could quit or let his contract run out and take what they have given him back out into the field with greater prestige than before. So the Times needs to treat him with care.

I'm not so worried about Murdoch. Yes he's hiring prominent bloggers, but if they sell out and lose their authentic voice, there will be a whole new group of bloggers to take their place in the blogosphere. Sellouts have value because they are rare intermediaries between listeners and the media. In an internet world, bloggers can't deliver that same value

Now Nate will be able to get together with David Sanger and Judy Miller and calculate the amount of WMD's in various countries...

I'm a huge fan of yours, but what a classless thing to post. Nate has worked hard to get where he is, he's established a great brand for himself built on open, honest and accurate work and he has chosen a great new opportunity to take that all to a much larger audience. IMHO that is something to be applauded. It's fine if you disagree, but keep it private for christsakes. This is the kind of pathetic whining I expect from the firebaggers, not you.

Mazel tov to Nate and the 538 team.

Karl - My struggle and that of many in the authentic journalism movement has been up against the New York Times for more than a decade now. Much of it is documented here: from the threat by disgraced (now ex) Times bureau chief Sam Dillon in Mexico against me not to publish the Banamex story ten years ago through the decade of Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, and the rest of the activities that we all know about.

In Chicago baseball terms, if a White Sox player suddenly suits up for the upscale Cubs, that's not going to make most Sox fans turn around and cheer for the Cubbies. This move by the Times is all about setting the ducks in line to put up its coming "paywall" - charging for its content, making it - likely including 538 - available only to those who can afford to pay.

Some of us are going to use that moment to continue the struggle against elite commercial media that we waged long before there was a Poblano or a 538. I love Nate, but I don't subjugate my principles in the buddy system of the media. The New York Times is a corrupt enemy going through its death throes and will fought no matter who it puts in its uniform.

You seem to believe that changing teams equals an "opportunity." But this ain't baseball. It's a real life struggle to free society from a corrupt commercial media, of which the New York Times is exhibit A in the case we've been making all these years.

You can make good and compelling arguments about any giant organization. But the I don't buy the idea that the Times is about to die. It's still one of the world's most influential news organizations and millions of people read it. I also don't buy into the idea that Nate will compromise his principles or integrity by joining the Times.

So, the New York Times is going to continue to be read by a lot of people and Nate Silver is going to continue to write about politics and culture someplace. I'd rather Nate gets those eyeballs because I think our politics would be the better with a little more Poblano.

I guess we have wildly differing perspectives. I still greatly respect your political and organizing instincts. I've grown up with and read independent media. I don't see the downside of this at all and I think the way you wrote this was incredibly condescending towards Nate. But alas, the world goes on. I don't think we have anything else of use to gain from this.

Karl - Two hugely important writers in the alternative weekly universe were Mark Leibovich and David Carr. Both were hired by the New York Times and I can't think or even remember the last story by either that lives up to their past work. Anybody entering that institution has to worry about the same happening to them. Especially when Times editor Bill Keller is out there today saying things like this about his new hire:

Mr. Silver has tackled other topics on FiveThirtyEight as well: last April he published a comprehensive nutritional analysis of fast food sandwiches showing how they stacked up to a new KFC concoction called the Double Down. Mr. Keller’s statement indicated that The Times would incorporate Mr. Silver’s analysis of culture and sports along with politics.

As for whether or not I am being condescending, I am a critic. It is part of my life's work. And all critics are condescending by nature. Nate has plenty to be happy about today, more resources coming his way, more readers (until the "paywall" goes up in a year or so) and lots of positive attention from the majority of folks who don't yet view the Times or the commercial media as the source of so much of society's and democracy's ills. Maybe he'll appreciate your critique of my critique today. But the day will come - because he is such a smart, decent and talented guy - when he will appreciate mine more, because he will soon experience, for the first time, what a big institution like the Times (which has had to lay off hundreds of journalists in recent years, a shadow of what it once was) does to those who it hires.

Your critique of my words are welcome. But so are my critiques of anything I wish to critique. That's how it works.

After reading this blog religiously, I finally disagree with Al.

I assume you were being a bit playful here and purposely over-the-top, but still, I don't buy the basic premise that Nate's analysis and output will change in a material way.  I see the move as giving him added exposure and, yes, credibility.

Take one example: during the congressional elections, Nate will now have a much higher profile than he did in 2008, and that could genuinely affect the narrative.  People might even stop giving Rasmussen the attention it now enjoys.

I also think it's plausible that Nate will help raise the quality of the NYT, rather than the NYT bring down Nate.

I hope you're wrong, Al, but I too have seen how individuals change when entering the corporatocracy.  Myself, I've unfortunately had to leave academia and now work for a large government contractor: working for the enemy, as it were.  While I like to think I'm still the same person, I find myself sometimes thinking "in the corporation's--and thus my--best interest."  And that makes the former me shudder with no small amount of shame.  But for me, my particular talents and expertise are suited only for two environments: academia or corporate, and I'm not able right now to return to my favorite environment, which is academia.

In any event, I hope that Mr. Silver can hold on to his current self.  But it'll be monumentally hard to do so.  And when the paywall goes up (geesh, I thought the NYT realized the fallacy of that model), we'll see less of him.  And that'd be bad, given the insight and logic used in his analyses and his remarkable ability to explain the results in layman's terms.

I don't think Krugman is a prick, though.  And a few of the other editorialists are quite penetrating (e.g., Herbert).  But outside of them, yep, they're all pretty much pricks.

Jeff, that paragraph you cite bothered me as well considering the egregious ethical breaches of Blair and Miller.  And there have been real world consequences especially to Miller's deeds.  When you stop and think of the hundreds of thousands who have died and the trillions spent on a war that was enabled in part because of the credibility the NYT gave to Cheney's lies--it is horrifying.  That was a crime against humanity.

It also bothered me that Nate thanked Bill Keller. Not only has he made terrible business and editorial decisions at the Times, but he was on the ground in Iran as the Green Movement protests began.  With all the resources of the Times at his disposal, he completely blew the story! The citizen journalists and protesters were putting their lives on the line and deserved much better from Keller.

And then there are all the small newspapers (good, old fashioned, local papers) that the Times bought up, mismanaged, and dropped when they were on death's doorstep.

The Times is like a Twilight vampire at this point--beneath the sparkle is a soulless, undead publication that isn't even a good read.

First, Nate has complete ownership and creative control over his content.

Second, it's for a 3 year period. If it works, he will renew. If not, he won't.

Considering the relative size and power of the NYT, Nate got a surprisingly even handed deal. It's almost a merger of equals. I think that that speaks to the power and influence of 538 and may be a model for other bloggers to follow.

Al,

I hear you on this. And how fundamental the issue is at its core. You wouldn't be you if this wasn't your analysis and reaction. Especially with the Banamex history.

As to the soul-deadening aspects of large institutions, agreed, albeit my experience is through the NGO world, with a decade in the Greenpeace/Greenpeace International labyrinth (as well as a six-month intern stint in the UN WMD Branch in 2005).

You won't be surprised that I'm going to take a wait-and-see on this one, cut Nate slack (that I wouldn't ask you to cut). I'm taking this part of Nate's statement as a dream jump for his work. One that frankly I hope runs its initial three-year course:

Nate Silver: "On the other hand, the terrific work of their graphic and interactive journalists was a major draw. The new blog should look and feel great, and should be substantially more robust and feature-rich than the simple, one-page design that we have now."

Knowing Nate just a bit, and loving the guy, you know I hope to hell he sticks to a principle of walking in many worlds on this. If the "big tent" Nate, accessible, and free to access, disappears or otherwise substantially changes then it's a disaster, and our and his loss. One does work in such waters at their peril. Again, IMHO.

Not pre-destined though.

I'm rooting for Nate to kick the big institution navigational skills into high gear and get everything he can get out of this experience. Starting with data. This guy is going to leapfrog in the ability to put his incredible data crunching to even bigger life with the data visualizations of the NYT graphics team. It's a huge platform and those resources I have no doubt will take the impact of his work far beyond what we've seen yet. Again I'm taking Nate at the data and graphics team angle. This should be hugely creative and cutting edge.

I'm generally one of for nuanced view, which pisses some off. What I mean is. Is the UN corrupt? There's a hell of a lot of corruption and soul-deadening bureaucracy, to be mild.

Are there worthy corners of the UN, are there people making a difference? In my direct experience, e.g., working with one of the rare fire-in-the-belly and highly skilled, thick-skinned, kind, intuitive and iron-gutted diplomats during the 2005 Review Conference of the (highly flawed) Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In that f#ck of an arena, is it a good thing this particular person is still there? Yes.

Is Greenpeace in its many iterations around the globe a wasteful gorilla, does it suck the soul out of its people? Yes. Are there also many many rich parts of Greenpeace and highly skilled, committed, talented people and projects around the world, making it a better place? Without question, IMO.

Again, I hear you, and don't disagree with your piece.

For me it's now about how Nate navigates the situation, the people, and inevitable huge pressures. Wishing him the best and for good outcomes. Personally, I'd hope he goes in and then out after a few years (build the relationships, do some great work, and take the money and run, dude!). But that's not my call.

Salud,

Tonya

Did Ezra Klein's work get better or worse when we moved to the Washington Post?

Ikl - Klein's decline began three years ago when he left independent blogging for the American Prospect. He has also weighed in this week on the 538 move, defending it and also himself:

"If I left The Washington Post tomorrow, I couldn't take my archives with me. But then, I wouldn't want to take my archives with me. I don't need everything I've ever written following me around forevermore. What protects me is that if I leave, I still control the Ezra Klein brand, and all of its rights revert back to me. That's not because it's written into my deal. It's because I'm Ezra Klein and my picture is on the banner."

Wow. Such towering prose and insight. Short version: I am my own brand! Give that boy a Pulitzer! However, one's brand takes on the entirety of what one says and does, and will forever carry the baggage of this kind of defensive navel gazing from his Washington Post years.

And the Post isn't even as drippingly evil as the New York Times, but it still has the same bottom line: profit, by sucking up to advertisers and serving only the upscale readers that those advertisers want. Yes his work has suffered at the Post! That's been evident from the get-go.

Not particular to Nate, maybe, but some words to keep in mind about how things work ... from journalist Chuck Bowden, describing the fate of Gary Webb:

"In a daily newspaper sense, Gary was the best investigative reporter in the country," Bowden said. "And he was unemployable.

"That tells me all I need to know about this business I'm in. You can get a paycheck every two weeks, as long as you don't draw blood."

I think that the NYT's programmers might be worth it.

Overall they have a pretty solid website from a technical standpoint and they have unrivaled flash programmer(s).  And the reality is that you can do a lot with technology these days.

Google for example was started and became what it is today based on nothing more than a good idea about data collection.  I suspect Nate's desire to move under the time's branding came from a desire to have a really nice website.

In my ideal best case possible scenario he gets them to build him something that polls individuals for a large number of traits that you can poll with a power equivalent to sql queries. 

Then you could do something like ask "Do people who had the smallpox vaccination have a reduced risk of being infected with aids?" and get the answer in about 5 minutes while having the computer probably doing a pretty good job of creating a random sample.

The traditional print side of the nytimes is worthless baggage.  But large corporations tend to have many parts.

Your posts on health care reform and Kagan made me a fan, but this post on 538/NYT and the one on the BP spill are pretty screechy. FWIW (little I know).