Comments on: Buzz from the Alternate Blogosphere

By: J Edgar

J Edgar — Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:31:24 +0000

My god, how much free time do people have that they can read the Kling essay on ‘Type M’ arguments (I was suckered before on the taxonomy of fresh-water economists vs. salt-water economists. Give me a break.) and then write to Kling about the high quality of his ideas.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:07:07 +0000

one of the most thoughtful voices I have ever encountered If someone who says that “the standard liberal analysis” begins “America is evil” is one of the most thoughtful voices you have ever encountered, then you need to encounter more voices. The respect with which Dr. Kling is viewed by some people astonishes me.

By: markus

markus — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:27:21 +0000

mr hutchings, it has already been pointed out to you, that the admission of the DCI link is rather recent, following investigation for Confessores article. I’m glad to link to it again, and you would maybe do well to read it, before repeating the same ignorant comment on more blogs.

By: Brad Hutchings

Brad Hutchings — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:51:50 +0000

I would just like to say that I have been reading Dr. Kling’s essays since before they were cool. While I haven’t and don’t agree with every thought he’s ever put to screen, he is one of the most thoughtful voices I have ever encountered and one of the most generous in sharing his thoughts. You are all entitled to dislike TCS for whatever reason. Although, all you ever had to do was read their about page to see the connection with DCI. You’re even entitled to embark on a McCarthyite campaign like Kling’s Corante co-blogger Dana Blankenhorn did. But if your net catches the likes of Kling in it, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you took some time to read Kling’s essay’s, and see that his contibutions to TCS are on such blatantly single-chromosome right wing hot button issues such as computer chess, then you’ll know that you’re caught up in a supremely idiotic campaign. -Brad

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:36:31 +0000

Good question. Just why is “bias is a publication’s business model” worse than any other sort of bias? Arguably, any paper’s left- or right-leaning bias can be said to be part of its business model. Part of the reason why something sells is because it panders to the tastes or biases of its readership. What then?

By: Jonathan Dursi

Jonathan Dursi — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:36:30 +0000

And how would you feel if the patron in question concealed their identity for quite some time, and suddenly you found the patron had ulterior motives?

I think we disagree about the future (and purpose?) of news sources. It'd be my contention that if you do accept information primarily from patron-supported sources you could windup totally uninformed, unless that patron's interests are very strongly aligned with your own.

And of course its hard to judge that if the patron lies about who they are.

By: Arnold Kling

Arnold Kling — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:11:39 +0000

Several people have asked me to address the issue raised in the Washington Monthly article. The issue is, as one person put it, that TCS’ “bias is in the business model.” I know I’m going to get flamed for saying this, but it is not clear to me that bias in the business model is worse than some other sort of bias. TCS is not a newspaper, and I do not consider myself a reporter. TCS is 100 percent opinions. So the issue of a “wall” between news and editorial seems irrelevant, unless I’m missing something. No editorial page accepts all submissions. My guess is that many editorial pages solicit pieces on topics where the editor wants to have something said. The solicitations I get from Nick seem to be pretty innocent—he asked me to write on the topic of immigration, for instance, because it seems to be a tough issue from a libertarian perspective. Out of close to 100 essays I’ve written, maybe a half dozen would have appealed to sponsors, and in those cases I had written at greater length and passion on my own, when I was just posting essays to my web site. See http://arnoldkling.com/~arnoldsk/aimstindex.html for my pre-TCS work. The opinions that TCS authors present are personal opinions. Even Glassman’s Bell-bashing is his personal opinion, which goes back to the one time I heard him speak, a couple of years before TCS even existed. (It’s also Bob Metcalfe’s personal opinion, and Metcalfe is a conservative and, as the inventor of Ethernet, entitled to a point of view on telecom.) I disagree with Glassman on telecom deregulation. Consequently, TCS has never published my personal opinion on that (although, interestingly, it has published my personal opinion on stock market valuation, which directly contradicted the Dow 36,000 view). TCS doesn’t want me to write for them on telecom deregulation, because I disagree with Glassman’s opinion. So what? It’s still a free country. I wrote an article and submitted it to a couple of newspapers, but I they found it too long and too esoteric (it included references to Hayek and Stiglitz), so I just posted it to my web site. Some bloggers liked it. TCS isn’t taking any revenge. I’m actually more disappointed with the newspapers’ reasons for not running it than I am with TCS’. I believe in engaging people with whom I disagree, as long as they are being reasonable. The “bias is in the business model” issue seems to me to be a pretty flimsy excuse for running away from someone else’s ideas. One of my TCS essays that you might want to read is “news of my death,” in which I predict that all newspapers may end up on the patronage model, given what is happening with technology and demographics. If that turns out to be the case, then if you refuse to accept information from a patron-supported source, you could wind up totally uninformed. See http://www.techcentralstation.com/070902B.html

By: Arnold Kling

Arnold Kling — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:51:02 +0000

Someone asked me to name some MIT alumni who find Krugman offensive. I received a number of supportive emails after my essay on type M arguments, but I only saved the ones from Zvi Bodie (now at BU), Meir Kohn (now at Dartmouth, who said that my essay should have been circulated as a petition within the economics profession and then used as a paid ad in the New York Times), and Robert Lerman now of the Urban Institute.

By: Jonathan Dursi

Jonathan Dursi — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:37:30 +0000

Mr. Kling:

(I’m sorry about the typo in your name in my earlier post.)

For what its worth, I’ve skimmed some of your recent articles on TCS. Several of them, particularly when you focus primarily on economics, seem well and fairly written.

But its become clear that your publication is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DCI, an `Astroturfing’ company, the sole purpose of which is to generate plausible-sounding articles, faux-grassroots meetings, calls from `private citizens’ to congress, and letters-to-the-editor for its corporate clients. Given that, TCS as a whole can no longer be considered a source for disinterested searches for truth, although some of the articles there may still be gems.

People may (unfairly) consider your past articles tainted by this form of `prepaid journalism’ (what a great phrase, Lisa!). I don’t; I’m willing to assume that you knew none of this in the past.

It’s not horrible that TCS has an editorial bias; many publications do. What’s disturbing is that the bias is actually its buisness model. TCS is paid to have a certain point of view, and presumably the editorial staff enforce this. That, I think we all agree, is unbelievably shoddy journalistic ethics. People who continue to contribute to TCS are consciously deciding that they are willing to accept this lack of journalistic and editorial integrity, and readers of future articles will (justifiably) wonder whether such a lack of concern for fairness or ethics is also reflected in their writing.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:36:24 +0000

Capitalism knows no bounderies, neither ethical nor ideological. They’d make whores of us all if they could. Anyway, I’ll be over at my blog, happily writing what I want and not getting paid one dirty cent. And you know why I’m happy? because I’m writing and someone is reading it. It may only be five people but that’s five more than would be reading me otherwise. Fuck Capitalism.

By: Esq

Esq — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:30:40 +0000

This is a question of journalism ethics. A journalist that is hired to write a specific article in a specific way is very different from a journalist who is hired to write an article about a specific subject any way that he/she wants. In the first case a responsible journalist has an obligation to the reader to explain the conflict of interest. In the second case there is no conflict of interest. I am positive that if we dig we will find the same weaseling going on by conservative commentators. As it regards Krugman, I am certain that he would receive many offers from Universities. He is, however, an awful political pundit and a very mediocre economist who allows his political views to completely distort his science. I’m pretty sure that you could write several books on his descent into madness. The guy is going to need some tranquilizers if Bush is re-elected.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:28:24 +0000

This is all very interesting, especially in light of the discussion on this list (Oct 07) about the credibility of climate scientists who had links to “interested” sources. Here are a few quotes from that discussion: “The Scientific Alliance is your basic pro-business lobby masquerading as an educational organization. Of course, none of that necessarily means that Stott?s conclusions are wrong, but I agree with Nabokov; lack of full disclosure makes me less likely to trust anything Stott says.” “As for Prof. Stott?s site, something smelt wrong when I read it – having read the comments here I think I now know what it was – the smell of undercover corporate funding.” “To be succinct, the reason to question the motivations of enviro skeptics is the same reason one would question the motivations of those scientists that work for the tobacco companies and continue to produce ?research? that shows smoking isn?t deleterious to your health.” Do these sentiments not apply to the current storm?

By: taak

taak — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:21:53 +0000

Quiz Time! Who said this:

There has been a dissipation of the huge budget surplus and all we have to show for that is the city of Baghdad.

and this:

The fiscal polices of this administration are systematically sacrificing the future of this nation.

Was it A. Paul Krugman B. Robert Solow Google for the answer. Hint: hostility to the Bush administration and being an MIT alumnus are not mutually exclusive conditions!

By: JP

JP — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:12:55 +0000

I’m still waiting for someone to read a column and discuss it, rather than just take cheap shots at my character. You must be brain-dead. How many times do people have to clarify the issue for you before you stop repeating the same irrelevant argument?

By: Richard Vagge

Richard Vagge — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:07:46 +0000

In defense of Krugman http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/eman.html or not. You make the call. I’m guessing that Crooked Timber should not even link to Krugman anymore because he is a “shill”. Let be clear about this. Krugman’s paean to Enron capitalism in no way means that you can ignore other things he writes. Even when he writes about Enron, you shouldn’t ignore it. Evaluate them with the intellectual powers you’ve accumulated over many years. If TCS says something interesting and important, does the fact that it is paid for by lobbyists mean anything? It’s the ideas, stupid.