Causal Attribution Catastrophe at the New York Times

“Economic Unrest is Shifting Electoral Battlegrounds” – front page headline New York Times, Sunday October 5th.

The trouble with this headline lies in the meaning of what the word “is” is.

“Is” indicates causality in this case, and is clearly spoken out of turn. The article claims that the cause of the recent turn in the electoral map toward Barack Obama is a result of (that is, is caused by) the worsening economic climate over the past month.

The evidence the article cites in support of its causal claim is that:

1) Obama is focused on Wall Street in his advertising emphasizing tax-cuts, healthcare and gambling with life savings,

2) The Governor of Pennsylvania stated that a one minute ad run by Obama in which he talks about the economy was one reason why polls are showing increased support for Obama, and

3) McCain’s pull out from Michigan was a results of Republican challenges in this declining economy given that they have held the White House for the past eight years.

Yes, the economic climate has worsened over the past month, but look at what else has happened in favor of Obama over the same period of time and ask yourself which of the following might also have had a hand in changing the complexion of the electoral map:

1) 80,000 people fill Mile High Stadium to watch Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, and is broadcast to over 40 million estimated viewers nationwide (second only to the Super Bowl in the past year).

2) Sarah Palin demonstrates tremendous difficulty expressing coherent arguments and deep competence in response to interview questions by Katie Couric, and is broadcast to millions nationwide.

3) Republicans sell out-group hatred and cynicism at the Republican National Convention – energizing their base at the risk of alienating moderate/independent voters.

4) Sarah Palin is scorched satirically on SNL three weeks in a row, and is broadcast to millions of voters.

5) Obama and the DNC have outspent McCain and the RNC by 40 percent.

These examples are just a few of the many factors that may have affected the electoral map shift. The point here is not to highlight all the positive events that have happened in the Obama campaign – rather, the point is to call out the New York Times for an error in causal attribution where causal evidence does not abound.

It is a major problem for one of the most respected and trusted media sources in the nation to attribute causality to one of many factors without evidence of a causal relationship. This should be unacceptable at our premier news organizations. The world deserves and demands more.

The questions of the day on the blog are:

1) How many opinions were influenced by this headline and shallow analysis?

2) How can we create a demand for better analysis from our first rate news organizations?