REVEALED: New York Mag’s Beloved “Approval Matrix” Is a Fraud


While high school math teachers go to great lengths to explain why their class is useful, college math professors don’t even try. That because college-level math isn’t useful—to me, at least. Once math progressed from numbers to letters to Greek letters, I no longer had any hope of applying it to my everyday problems. So I was a little surprised when my college linear algebra class came in handy here at work.

As a fact-checker at Mother Jones, I get to be very precise and a bit too literal and sometimes annoying. That’s why, when we started plotting political scandals and Major League Baseball owners in the style of New York magazine’s Approval Matrix, I started feeling uncomfortable. Okay, I’m just going to come out and say it: This is not a matrix. It’s a Cartesian coordinate plane!

(P.S.: Here are those brilliant, lowbrow Game of Thrones attack ads it mentions.)

This is not a matrix either…

Nor is this…

(I helped produce this last graphic and actually wrote “matrix” into the slug, so I’m not coming off clean here.)

So, if you remember back to your own algebra class, matrices are an array of mathematical elements such as numbers, expression, or symbols. They look something like this:

Both our and New York’s “matrices” are actually Cartesian coordinate planes, which you may also remember from algebra. The x and y axes represent different values that increase as you move away from the center. Simple, really.

But don’t take it from me. Linear algebra is the reason I spent hours drawing matrices back in the day, so I decided to email my college professor. Once the youngest tenured professor at Harvard, Noam Elkies is a pretty brilliant mathematician. (Far too brilliant to be teaching the standard linear algebra class I took for my major.) He confirmed that, yes, this was certainly not a matrix you’d encounter in linear algebra, and could more accurately be called Cartesian. However, he added, “You can think of it as a mathematical matrix in the trivial bookkeeping sense that any spreadsheet is a matrix, even though hardly any of the mathematical structure of matrices is relevant. It hardly seems worth making a fuss over this.”

Fine, so maybe we can get by on a technicality. But I still wanted to know: Were the creators of the Approval Matrix aware of their mathematical imprecision? Had they ever considered more technically accurate names such as Approval Euclidean Plane Embedding? (One mathematician actually suggested this as an alternative.)

I put the question to Emily Nussbaum, the New Yorker TV critic who, as an editor at New York, helped create the Approval Matrix. Nussbaum had this to say in response: “I consider it a multi-faceted, prismatic, 5-Dimensional environment with a hidden wormhole, impossible to fully portray on paper, so ‘matrix’ seemed to work as shorthand.”

I haven’t fact-checked that, but it sounds about right to me.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.