There have been some fairly furious reactions out there to the various postings by me and others concerning TCS yesterday, most of which don’t merit a reply. I would, though, like to invite those who have suggested that I’m reluctant to read or to link to sites which disagree with my own political beliefs to peruse my postings on CT (or earlier, on Junius ). They’ll see that their suggestion is misplaced. But I do see that my rather brief explanation of my unwillingness to write for TCS — “too right-wing for me” — was misleading. After all, if the Daily Telegraph offers me a column, I’ll happily accept. TCS, though, isn’t just a broadly conservative media outlet but a site that relentlessly pushes a particularly narrow agenda — “where free markets meet technology” — in a style reminiscent of “infotainment” or those articles you sometimes start reading that look like the proper thing but have “paid advertisment” discreetly tucked-away somewhere. And I felt that I didn’t want either to lend respectability to such an outfit or, conversely, to have my own undermined by association with it. (I’m still puzzled by the Curmudgeonly Clerk, by the way, who opines that my deciding not write for TCS reflects an “unhealthy politicization of personal decisionmaking”. Is there something wrong with allowing one’s values to inform one’s personal decisions?)
“Is there something wrong with allowing one’s values to inform one’s personal decisions?”
Absolutely not. Indeed, you can choose to write or not write for any publication for any damn reason you like. You don’t have to justify yourself on that account to anyone.
(Note: you certainly loaded the question, though, didn’t you?)
I’m puzzled by the defense of TCS. Imagine if TCS was run by a left-wing lobbying group that organized faux-grass-roots campaigns. The outrage would be enormous, and the right-wing commentariat would be using this as an example of how tainted and phony liberal commentators really are. I do not doubt this.
Of course, that doesn’t prove that such outrage, either in reality or my hypothetical, is appropriate.
But I think it is. TCS was pretending to be something it’s not. All publications have editorial bias. Some publications are the outlets of partisan think-tanks. Few publications are the outlet of a for-profit, partisan, very cynical and manipulative lobbying company…and TCS disguised this fact.
There is a defense of TCS coming from the usual suspects. But I am quite sure that they will lose some of their authorial contributers, and some readership, because of this.
First, i think it’s great that a publication that
is “too right-wing” and “relentlessly” pushing
“a particularly narrow agenda” is asking someone
like Chris Bertram to write for them. It’s like
The Nation asking Glenn Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan
writing for them. But of course they won’t.
Second, if people like Daniel Drezner, Arnold Kling,
Megan McCardle, Michael J. Totten (and i forget others),
all very respected, declare unisono that they can
write what they want, without much pressure, and then
only from editor Nick Schultz, and not from Glasmann, i honostly
don’t see what’s wrong with the respectability of TCS.
Third, it all smell’s too much of Chomsky, you know.
What Confessore has done for TCS, Chomsky does all the
time, like with the New York Times: they are privately run,
so they are biased and untruthfull. And i have much
“circumstantial evidence to support (my) claims”!
Fourth, we should better listen to Karl Popper, don’t look
at who is arguing but to the arguments itself, so we
can let “the arguments die in our place”. So please next time
write about the arguments and not about the sponsors: we all
have sponsors.
What bothers you more, that they push an agenda, (Like the NYT doesn’t…) or the realization that your views might be compatable with that agenda?
“First, i think it’s great that a publication that is “too right-wing” and “relentlessly” pushing “a particularly narrow agenda” is asking someone like Chris Bertram to write for them. It’s like The Nation asking Glenn Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan writing for them.”
No, it’s not. And that’s the problem. Doesn’t it occur to you that perhaps TCS isn’t selecting writers on the basis of the integrity of their writing, or out of a desire to merely present all sides of the issue? That, in fact, TCS is owned by a company whose services are to provide to paying customers influence on politicians via subterfuge? That, although they may have a right-wing leaning, they cherry-pick contributers such that the line their customers favor is furthered? For example, in his article Confessore describes some interesting inconsistencies in TCS’s view on telecommunication policy.
This isn’t about right- versus left-wing bias. It’s not about a publication having a bias, or even that it disguises that it does. We all know and accept that sort of thing. It’s exactly that you and people like you take this publication to be a well-intentioned, though biased (like every publication is) participant in civil discourse when that’s not what it is. It’s a trojan horse. It would be just as outrageous had it a leftist bias, rather than a rightist bias.
“people like Daniel Drezner, Arnold Kling,
Megan McCardle, Michael J. Totten (and i forget others), all very respected”
Megan McCardle? Arnold Kling?
Respected?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(I don’t know Totten, Drezner is 50-50).
The reason people are pissed at outing TCS is that yet another allegedly intellectual organization on the right is revealed to be nothing more than a propaganda tool.
There’s a thread about this at Daniel Drezner’s blog. This is what I wrote there:
I think Dan and other contributing bloggers are TCS’s fig-leaf, giving them the credibility they need. I have read stuff about energy tech and policy on TCS that was mind-bogglingly unscientific and biased towards … well, business and industry interests. That’s what you guys are making palatable. Mixing it with grass makes astroturf less visible.
“It’s exactly that you and people like you take this publication to be a well-intentioned, though biased (like every publication is) participant in civil discourse when that’s not what it is.”
Keith, I still don’t understand the harm that you believe flows from this situation. Assuming that you are correct that there was some concealment at TCS, why is this materially harmful to anyone? I have to imagine that no readers give money to TCS on the supposition that it is a pure media outlet, nor do any readers make public policy decisions on the basis that, “TCS recommends this position, and they’re a disinterested media source.” People assume that Mother Jones or the Weekly Standard select their content according to how it advances their policy-advocacy positions, and people assume that those choices suit the preferences of the magazine’s readers, advertisers, and owners; why would people believe any differently about TCS?
Tom, for all we know, DCI is completely open to the highest bidder. Would you feel comfortable if TCS were soliting writers and articles as to conform to some policy that bin Laden wanted to push? Without disclosure? Glassman used to be quite the lefty. TCS has a nice conservative readership sitting there waiting to read hand-picked articles, friendly to leftist interests, that will fly right under their radar. How do you know this isn’t happening?
People are defending TCS and DCI as if this was a partisan left versus right matter. It’s not. DCI is a privately owned lobbying firm that is in the business of selling influence and making money from doing so. Were do you think TCS gets its money from? They don’t advertise.
People in this thread, Kieran’s satire thread, and elsewhere keep saying that the truth (or falsity) of the words should be the only things that count. So, is that how you feel about subterranean faux-grass-roots letter writing campaigns to local newspapers of pre-written, identical letters, all appearing to be legitimately the honest expression of a local individual? That doesn’t bother you? If the letter is “true” does it bother you? If it’s “true”, and it’s leftist, does it bother you?
This isn’t about editorial bias. That’s a natural and unavoidable aspect of civil discourse. It’s about dishonesty that perverts civil discourse because it violates the presumed good-will that underlies it. Even if we imagine that the individual writers are all writing in good will, we now know that the editorial decisions are not made in good-will. They’re sold to the highest bidder. I don’t doubt that magazine and newspaper publishers in the past have been similarly influenced. But not, to my knowledge, as part of their essential business model. And no one admits to it, they keep it a secret. TCS kept it a secret. Shouldn’t that indicate something? We find this sort of thing unacceptable, and for good reason.
Chris, is your concern primarily about causal efficacy - ie the contribution you might have made to whatever harm TCS does in the world, or is it primarily about complicity - ie about being morally contaminated by working for forces which you disapprove of? These are different kinds of worries generating very different kinds of arguments.
Eve, I’m not clear on your distinction between causal efficacy and complicity. Could you say more?
Eve,
I suppose I’d say that my immediate revulsion at the thought of writing there has to do with feelings of contamination. So there’s a virtue-related concern: I’d have felt ashamed… That’s dissociable from the harm they do, since I’d also feel compromised if I hung out with a bunch of racists who (for whatever contingent reason) were actually harmless. [Note to the stupid: that’s an illustration to isolate one concern from the other not a claim about TCS whose contributors afaik are all non- or anti-racist].
I’m not sure if TCS does much actual harm since the close resemblance of many of their columns to the Andrew Northrup parody of them ought to deprive them of effect. But probably they enable people who already believe (and desperately want to believe) certain propositions to reinforce their beliefs - and that’s a bad thing.
Lets try a little thought experiment here….
Suppose people started making rude comments and dumping coke on the ground at public sporting events. Many of them are suddenly quoted about how much they hated Coke.
Now, to the average person setting in front of their TVs, it looks like probably something has changed with Coke, and they are very unlikely to by any more Coke.
Now, IN REALITY, PepsiCo has hired about 100 actors, and 3 camera crews, and that same group goes to several major sporting events and does their performance piece, and suddenly the free market has completely ceased to exist.
Only we are not talking about something as marginal as a market, or unimportant as economics, but the very discourse about the direction of our public policy. Worse still, politicians, (those guys who WRITE OUR LAWS) are by their nature very sensitive to public opinion, so the fake opinion on TV drives so VERY bad laws to be written contrary to the public good, or ANY opinion except the small group that paid for the campaign in the first place.
Editorial bias is a fact of life. Each person must read each publication, determine that bias, and decide what weight to give it. What TCS does is to manufacture what seems to be numerous individuals with NO APPARENT overriding bias, and the DIRECT lie that they have no connection to each other. A DELIBERATE, DESIGNED PLAN TO HIDE THE BIAS in the advertisement. (I think that most would agree, being paid to endorse an idea you did not agree with strongly would constitute an advertisement in any media.)
When you see an advertisement you know that it is lying to you, and you know to discount it. When you read a letter to the editor, or see a “grassroots” organization complaining about an issue, even though it is a PAID advertisement, it is not presented as such, so you are not LOOKING for the lies being told.
(Anyone that wants to argue that advertising, BY It’s NATURE is not a lie, go ahead, but that would be a hard battle to win)
Thoughts from the mind of Mr TeK.
I have appended an update to my original post that links to your response here. I think that our exchange is largely the result of a misunderstanding re: “too right-wing for me.” Given your clarification, it doesn’t seem that your post would be subject to my particular criticism at any rate. However, my somewhat inchoate argument isn’t really about the influence of one’s politics on decisionmaking, but rather the extent of that influence and just how much is too much.
Keith: I had in mind the difference between actions which actually contribute to bringing about an (in this case unwanted) effect, and actions which may or may not contribute causally, but which involve real or apparent collaboration with those who do aim at the production of those effects. (That’s very sketchy; no doubt a lot more refinement of the distinction is needed.)
Chris: I imagine that any journal or website with a distinct political position enables some people to maintain beliefs which they desperately wish to hold on to. Can that be a reason for refraining from writing for them? If so, it’s going to rule out a great deal of paper and electronic journalism. And surely it’s better for any such outlet to get dissenters to write for them, than for it not to do so?
I’m wondering what it really takes to generate complicity, of the kind that makes a person rightly feel contaminated. Would sharing a political activity (eg a protest) with those who have utterly objectionable beliefs be sufficient? If so, then again that’s going to rule out a great deal of activity!
Eve,
My nose is hardly infallible. And many of the individuals who have written for TCS are - despite views with which I disagree - people with whom I have no problem associating. But something felt (or smelt) wrong about TCS and I think Confessore’s exposure of it as an astroturfing operation vindicates my olfactory reflexes.
I’ve read enough Karl Popper to know that, irrefutably, TCS prints a LOT of junk.
I know that TCS and it’s supporters put a lot of energy in the logic and terminology of their arguments (I guess that is part of the “Tech” of TCS), but when it comes down to it, they are happy with it’s flaws, they pat each other on the back for reaching mutual insights, and they do have a lot of energy to argue with anyone who calls junk, junk.
(Do write me when Nepal, a tiny, poor, land-locked country between China and India, succeeds as a free-trade zone)
Chris: I don’t have a view about TCS, nor would I expect anyone to be infallible about these matters. But given that people are worried about contamination, and are also very ready to charge others with it (as the TCS debate shows), it would be interesting to know what (if any) criteria there are for its correct attribution. You suggested you’d feel contaminated if you found yourself hanging out with racists. So would I. But then there’s this problem about large-scale political protests. Many of them attract racists, for one reason or another. Are the participants thereby contaminated?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review