Glenn Reynolds tells us that he just doesn’t get Nick Confessore’s article on TCS’s connections with the Astroturf purveyors of the DCI Group. Reynolds says that he’s never felt pressure to write articles in a certain way, or on certain subjects. He then goes on to treat us to some ponderous sarcasm, effectively dismissing Confessore, Marshall et al. as conspiracy theorists. Now, accusations of conspiracy theory are a bit rich from someone who bought into Den Beste’s crackpot explanations of European opposition to the war. But that’s a side issue. Reynolds (deliberately?) misses the main point of Confessore’s article. I’m quite happy to believe Reynolds when he says that he never felt any pressure to change his writing. But Confessore doesn’t say (or imply) that every article for TCS is driven by a corporate agenda. If Confessore’s insinuations are on the mark (and he’s amassed some fairly convincing circumstantial evidence to support his claims), one may easily imagine why a crowd of flacks might solicit articles from independent outsiders. They provide useful camouflage for the corporate shill-pieces that are written to order. To put it in terms that Glenn can understand, there’s a better than even chance that he’s been a useful idiot. I wonder how it feels.
Hardly any need for pressure. For one thing he probably believe what he writes: “He may be wrong but at least he is sincere.”
And isn’t a parallel phenomenon referred to as ‘self-censorship?’
They don’t have to ask him to write a certain way. If they know what his positions are on certain issues beforehand, they can selectively solicit articles on those issues where his views line up with those of their sponsors.
Considering how it’s so rare for bloggers to make any money from their hobby, they’re a prime recruiting ground for writers of chaff columns.
david sucher writes :”Hardly any need for pressure”
The point, I think, is that there is no pressure. TCS doesn’t need to guide or suggest the content of most of their columns. Reynolds and others can write what they want.
The point is that TCS can slip in the occasional column, written to order, by an industry flack or a political flack. That column will benefit from a veneer of credibility provided by Reynolds and other writers who write independent but ideologically acceptable columns.
If, on the other hand, TCS ran mostly flack columns, then nobody would take them seriously, or would treat TCS columns as press releases, with the requisite grains of salt.
Instead, they’re maintaining a semi-journalistic pretense, by running independent columns to act as camouflage for the flack PR pieces.
A lobbying firm wouldn’t waste money funding TCS if it couldn’t be used to further their clients’ agendas.
Far from being a loss-leader for TCS, publishing articles from Reynolds, McArdle, Totten, et al., enhances the business of the lobbying firm, since their opinions tend to reflect the interests of the corporations sponsoring TCS. The bloggers can maintain the fiction of independence, while still receiving the material benefits of writing for a widely-read website. The corporations get the benefit of “astroturfing” political commentary that shares their views.
What struck me most about Confessore’s article is its premise that the identity and/or agenda of a person who writes an article has great impact on the validity of the arguments in the article. Confessore dresses this up by alluding to human nature, saying that TCS takes advantage of a veneer of independence to lend credence to carefully-placed thrusts in corporate PR campaigns, since most people tend to lend greater credence to articles that are written by independent observers. But that tendency is purely irrational, an ingrained and internalized form of the ad hominem fallacy. It should go without saying that a lobbyist’s argument should be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of its premises and logic, and not discounted because a lobbyist is making it.
The phrase “idea laundering” also encapsulates this notion. Confessore implies with this choice of words that ideas can be tainted by the agendas of the people who advance them; Glassman, he argues, is a shady character who conceals — “launders” — this taint from the reading public. But pandering to the human tendency to dismiss arguments for irrelevant reasons seems to me more distasteful than anything Glassman does.
“It should go without saying that a lobbyist’s argument should be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of its premises and logic, and not discounted because a lobbyist is making it.”
Maybe on planet Logicon. Here on earth, it’s useful to know who’s hiring the willing to bullshit me for money.
Perhaps ANSWER organised demonstrations and bias from, say, the BBC and the “liberal media” in general provide an interesting test for those saying the source doesn’t matter.
Confessore dresses this up by alluding to human nature, saying that TCS takes advantage of a veneer of independence to lend credence to carefully-placed thrusts in corporate PR campaigns, since most people tend to lend greater credence to articles that are written by independent observers. But that tendency is purely irrational, an ingrained and internalized form of the ad hominem fallacy. It should go without saying that a lobbyist’s argument should be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of its premises and logic, and not discounted because a lobbyist is making it.
In an ideal world this is true, but evaluating arguments consumes time and resources, and even then most audiences are not terribly good at it, so trust is a useful tool barring perfect information and unlimited time. There are only so many voices you can listen to in a given day.
Trust and credibility are valuable when an arguer presents evidence which is impractical for you to verify. This is why it’s so important in journalism and in the academic world.
I find that most of the time when I find out about a heuristic people use that prima facie seems irrational, even laughably silly if you think about it in a certain way that lets you do that, upon closer inspection that certain way of thinking is leaving out relevant contraints that people face in reality. People develop heuristics because on average their benefits exceed their costs* given time, information and resource scarcity.
(*Note that benefits may be short-term at the cost of long-term and social costs may exceed private costs. E.G. benefits might be ego protection, addiction satisfaction, dissonance reduction, etc.)
“Glenn Reynolds tells us that he just doesn’t get Nick Confessore’s article ….”.
Wow. For a law professor, he sure seems incapable of understanding things, doesn’t he? He also couldn’t understand the Plame affair, due to it’s alleged complexity.
Maybe I should apply for a position at the U Tenn law school - after all, it’s not like I’d have to be qualified, or anything.
“Now, accusations of conspiracy theory are a bit rich from someone who bought into Den Beste’s crackpot explanations of European opposition to the war.”
Now this statement is outrageous. Everybody knows, and I mean everybody, that soon - within just days, maybe even just hours - the US forces will discover a whole network of HUGE UNDERGROUND FACTORIES CHURNING OUT GAZILLIONS OF LETHAL WMD’S ALL OPERATED BY THE TREACHEROUS FRENCH AND GERMANS. How can you dare doubt this self-evident fact?
P.S.: has someone followed den Beste’s dementia to see if he has cared to explain the lack of WMDs in Iraq? Or the absence of the famed brand new French and German made Iraqi arsenal?
The points made above are well taken. I did want to comment on the following, though —
Perhaps ANSWER organised demonstrations and bias from, say, the BBC and the “liberal media” in general provide an interesting test for those saying the source doesn’t matter.
Two things —
1. It doesn’t just provide a test for those saying the source doesn’t matter — it provides a test for those saying it does. Are we to assume that people who hold anti-war views and who also know of ANSWER’s support for demonstrations at which those views were advanced are, prima facie, Stalinists? Of course not.
2. I don’t think the issue with ANSWER was with their misrepresenting themselves as a mainstream organization — they made little attempt to hide their respect for North Korea, for example. The issue was, rather, the fact that the real mainstream media yawned at the fact that the face of the antiwar movement was a Stalinist group, when one can imagine that the reaction might have been a tad different if they had been Klansmen.
It’s curious how many idiot lawyers, profs, and other professionals (reynolds, pejman, etc. can’t figure out the astroturf, fig-leaf, beard, shield angle.
It’s not that say they don’t think it’s occuring, they say they don’t understand the argument, and then they defend something else, they haven’t been asked to modify what they write.
Sheesh, denial, embarassment, or purposeful obfuscation?
I have been asked to contribute to TCS and have never been told what to write. I don’t write for them because it would clash with my regular job.
It is true that TCS generally writes in support of capitalism, the free society and embraces technology as well as dissing militant environmentalism. All of which no doubt is unforgiveable for the left. But unlike the BBC propoganda, you don’t have to pay for it.
Nick Confessore has an interesting article in which he reveals that webzine Tech Central Station is actually p...
Read more at Deltoid
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