"Journalists get access to privileged information. . . , then evaluate, filter, and order it through the rather ineffable quality alternatively known as “news judgment,” “news sense,” or “savvy.” This norm of objectivity is how political journalists say to the public. . . .
The author uses the word "objectivity" when the right word is "subjectivity". 'savvy', 'news sense', 'gut feeling' are never objective. The author himself says so a few sentences later:
Where political journalists’ information is evaluated through a subjective and nebulous professional/cultural sense of judgment.
And yet, he concludes by going back to "objectivity" :
When journalistic objectivity is confronted with scientific objectivity, its circuits are fried.
The bottom line is: this is the age-old war between what I'd call 'science' (Silver, given his methods) and 'art' ( the journalists ).
I think the author knows what he is talking about.
Journalistic objectivity is about reporting the news without your personal bias. I think you can give your subjective opinion (making predictions, etc) and still have it be considered objective journalism.
Thats why his tldr is about the clash between the two objectivities.
The author uses the word "objectivity" when the right word is "subjectivity". 'savvy', 'news sense', 'gut feeling' are never objective. The author himself says so a few sentences later:
Where political journalists’ information is evaluated through a subjective and nebulous professional/cultural sense of judgment.
And yet, he concludes by going back to "objectivity" :
When journalistic objectivity is confronted with scientific objectivity, its circuits are fried.
The bottom line is: this is the age-old war between what I'd call 'science' (Silver, given his methods) and 'art' ( the journalists ).