The Predictive Power of Political Pundits
Prescient or Pitiful
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5716080 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Phillip Metaxas, Andrew Leigh (0000-0002-5639-0509, House of Representatives) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 147 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 5-17 |
| Publication date | 2013-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Media International Australia (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1329-878X • E-ISSN: 2200-467X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1329878x1314700103 |
| OpenAlex | W32631825 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
Although Australian political pundits frequently make predictions about the future, little systematic evidence exists about the accuracy of these predictions. To assess the predictive power of experts, we survey the transcripts of two well-known political programs - Insiders and Meet the Press - and record all falsifiable forecasts. Looking at the three months prior to both the 2007 and 2010 federal elections, we are struck by the paucity of falsifiable predictions, with most pundits heavily qualifying their predictions (so that they can never be said to be wrong). In 32 hours of television, we identify 20 falsifiable forecasts in our sample, of which we judge thirteen to be correct. We conclude with some suggestions for political talk shows, and for political scientists seeking to better analyse expert predictions
Economics · Epistemology · Falsifiability · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Predictive power · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · Forecasting Techniques and Applications · Law · Philosophy
Combining forecasts
Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?
Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success
The Challenge of Predicting Economic Crises
Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of Experts
The Performance of UK Exchange Rate Forecasters
Conditions for intuitive expertise
| Highly cited | No |
|---|