I think it would be interesting to see what happens with the partisanship in the next couple of months. Comparing election years against non-election years would be interesting — it’s too bad that the data is somewhat spoiled at this point.
Yes, it’s bad timing that I couldn’t keep up the rankings during an election year. 2004 was very interesting and I think this year is too. Although I haven’t had time to evaluate the columns, I have been saving them, so I could complete the entire year someday (probably wishful thinking). If the White House changes hands, I am determined to resume the rankings in 2009, because I think that there would be much to learn from the pundits’ response to the change.
And thanks for the encouragement Andrew!
Comment by Ken Waight — Saturday 11 October 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Ken; you’ve been missed terribly.
Welcome back.
Comment by Peg — Wednesday 15 October 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Thanks Peg! Your blog continues to be an enjoyable daily read for me. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Ken Waight — Thursday 16 October 2008 @ 8:36 am
Interesting site and an admirable goal. If columnists are more critical of one party or another in any given time frame perhaps it is not only because of their political bias. Perhaps one party is more “right” than the other–or perhaps at times one party is off the wall bonkers and the other is simply mediocre. The point is that you can’t measure partisanship by the number of neg pos mentions alone. In the current environment, neo cons are proving to be of the wall bonkers–so it makes sense for columnists to attack them more. Hence, George Will showing up as a Dem columnist.
Apologies if you take this into account somehow–I skimmed your methodology section.
Comment by window shopping — Saturday 1 November 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Welcome back! I had just about given up hope.
Comment by Andrew Myers — Tuesday 7 October 2008 @ 10:07 pm
I think it would be interesting to see what happens with the partisanship in the next couple of months. Comparing election years against non-election years would be interesting — it’s too bad that the data is somewhat spoiled at this point.
Comment by Andrew Myers — Tuesday 7 October 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Yes, it’s bad timing that I couldn’t keep up the rankings during an election year. 2004 was very interesting and I think this year is too. Although I haven’t had time to evaluate the columns, I have been saving them, so I could complete the entire year someday (probably wishful thinking). If the White House changes hands, I am determined to resume the rankings in 2009, because I think that there would be much to learn from the pundits’ response to the change.
And thanks for the encouragement Andrew!
Comment by Ken Waight — Saturday 11 October 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Ken; you’ve been missed terribly.
Welcome back.
Comment by Peg — Wednesday 15 October 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Thanks Peg! Your blog continues to be an enjoyable daily read for me. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Ken Waight — Thursday 16 October 2008 @ 8:36 am
Interesting site and an admirable goal. If columnists are more critical of one party or another in any given time frame perhaps it is not only because of their political bias. Perhaps one party is more “right” than the other–or perhaps at times one party is off the wall bonkers and the other is simply mediocre. The point is that you can’t measure partisanship by the number of neg pos mentions alone. In the current environment, neo cons are proving to be of the wall bonkers–so it makes sense for columnists to attack them more. Hence, George Will showing up as a Dem columnist.
Apologies if you take this into account somehow–I skimmed your methodology section.
Comment by window shopping — Saturday 1 November 2008 @ 12:04 pm