Volume 78, January–February 2020,
Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R.Coyle
… Table 4. Expert opinions on intelligence in the media and public debates.
Item M or % SD N Accuracy of media, scale 1 (inaccurate) to 9 (accurate) Steve Sailer blog 7.38 2.25 26 Anatoly Karlin blog 6.1 2.75 10 Die Zeit (German) 5.1 2.57 20 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (German) 4.89 2.63 18 Die Welt (German) 4.67 2.16 15 Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) (German) 4.54 2.5 13 Süddeutsche Zeitung (German) 4.42 2.43 19 Times 4.3 2.23 30 Economist 4.21 1.91 43 Wall Street Journal 4.2 1.9 49 Le Monde (Spanish) 3.88 2.7 8 Der Spiegel (German) 3.84 2.04 19 El Pais (Spanish) 3.83 2.37 12 New York Times 3.81 2.19 58 Focus (German) 3.71 2.26 17 Daily Telegraph 3.7 2.04 27 Le Figaro (French) 3.63 2.45 8 Tageszeitung (taz) (German) 3.6 2.32 15 Guardian 3.57 2.04 37 Time 3.55 1.9 44 Washington Post 3.54 1.98 41 National Public Radio 3.53 2.03 62 Newsweek 3.5 1.92 44 El Mundo (Spanish) 3.46 1.98 13 State-owned television networks 3.31 1.8 61 Commercial television networks 2.67 1.49 70
… Experts were skeptical of the quality of media reports on intelligence research (Table 4). In general, mean expert ratings of media accuracy were around 3–4, on a scale of 1 (very inaccurate) to 9 (very accurate). Only two media outlets received positive ratings, the blogs of Steve Sailer (M = 7.38, N = 26 ratings) and Anatoly Karlin (6.10, N = 10 ratings).
… The EQCA was an online survey administered from May 2013 to March 2014. The survey was sent to authors who published at least one article after 2010 in journals covering cognitive ability. The journals included Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences. In addition, members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) were invited (from December 2013 to January 2014) to complete the EQCA, and an announcement was published on the website of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID). By the survey deadline of March 2014, a total of 265 responses were received, which produced a response rate of 19.71%. Because participants could skip items, the response rate varied from case to case. The total EQCA consisted of 62 multiple choice and multiple response questions, some with sub-questions and comment sections.
Here’s a picture you can use of my adaptation of the data from the article, showing just English-language outlets and with simpler rounding of decimals:
So, my iSteve blog came in first among media outlets for accuracy in the judgement of published researchers in cognitive ability, with a rating of 7.38 on a 1 to 9 scale. And it wasn’t close, with fellow Unz Review blogger Anatoly Karlin in second place at 6.1.
My ratings were fairly consistent with a standard deviation of 2.25, meaning that the great majority of authorities rated me at least 5 on a 1 to 9 scale.
The number of respondents rating me, 26, was higher than for any non-English language outlet, and not much less than the Daily Telegraph (27), the Times of London (30), and The Guardian (37), and not all that far lower than the Washington Post (41), The Economist (43), Time and Newsweek (both 44), the Wall Street Journal (49), and the New York Times (58).
The chasm between the experts’ rating for accuracy of iSteve (7.38 on 26 responses) and their rating of the New York Times (3.81 on 58 responses), or a gap of about one and a half standard deviations, ought to lead to some self-reflection at 620 Eighth Avenue, although I presume it will instead just lead to doubling down on more Amy Harmon crusades against great scientists.
Do I still deserve to be #1 media outlet on intelligence in 2019? Today, I’d vote for yet another Unz Review blog, James Thompson. Plus numerous sources have emerged since 2013 on Twitter.