[I agree with the defenses of Techcentralstation.com. I hardly agree with everything on the site of course (in the site's lead article, James Glassman wants to ban reimported drugs from Canada), but it serves a worthy purpose. I assume the sponsors of the site believe their shareholders will benefit from lower taxes, reduced government spending, and a freer society. Leftists may not like those ideas much, but that outcome doesn't seem extraordinarily objectionable to me. --Declan] --- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:18:25 -0700 From: "Jed S. Baer" <thag@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Subject: Re: [Politech] techcentralstation.com: Reinventing lobbying as journalism? In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040102102844.038179f8@private> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040102102844.038179f8@private> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:45:56 -0500 Declan McCullagh <declan@private> wrote: > --- > > To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@private> > Subject: Reinventing Lobbying as Journalism > From: david.e.young@private > Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:09:37 -0500 > > Declan, > > I thought you [and Politech] might enjoy this essay on the blurring > line between journalism and lobbying. The title is "Meet the Press", by > > Nicholas Confessore from the December 2003 Washington Monthly. > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html Hey, Declan. Various TCS writers have already thrashed this one over. Some excerpts. Megan McArdle: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004498.html [ quote ] Nicholas Confessore has written a piece in the Washington Monthly arguing that Tech Central Station journalism is merely Paid Shilling for Our Corporate Sponsors. I can only speak from my own experience, of course, but in my time as a contributor to TCS, I've never been told what to write -- other than a request to focus on a topic Nick Schulz thought was timely and important -- or how to write it. Obviously, it's a libertarian-leaning site, and I probably wouldn't pitch an article arguing that we need to nationalize the coal industry, but then, as Daniel Drezner points out, I wouldn't pitch what I've written for TCS to the Nation, either, and no one seems to think that makes their journalism ethically suspect. And I've certainly never written one line for TCS for any reason other than that I thought it was true; certainly not so that I could serve as a "mouthpiece" for think-tanks or corporate executives. Nor, as far as I know, have any of the other contributors I've met. [ end quote ] Glenn Reynolds: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012601.php [ quote ] It's hard to know exactly what he doesn't like about TCS -- other than, you know, the fact that a lot of its authors disagree with his politics -- but it seems to have something to do with the fact that it's not a non-profit, instead relying on some sort of new innovation called "sponsors"(cleverly concealed here on the TCS website!) to pay the bills. But he doesn't really critique any actual articles, or supply much in the way of specifics. All I'll say is that I've written for TCS for nearly two years, and they've never told me what to write. Occasionally the editor, Nick Schulz, will suggest a topic -- last week he suggested that I write something about the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I stupidly declined, not realizing what a big issue it would be this week -- but it's certainly hard for me to discern any Subtle Corporate Agenda in those suggestions. Of course, if it were a really subtle corporate agenda, I might not notice. In fact, I might write articles that I thought were my own idea, but that really advanced the Subtle Corporate Agenda. But let's not get paranoid, here. If that were true, I would have written a nonspecific article in some other publication, pretending at criticism but actually announcing that TCS was really good at advancing the agendas of its paying sponsors, thus encouraging more companies to become paying sponsors. Hmm. Hey, you don't think. . . . ? [ end quote ] Pejman Yousefzadeh: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/005006.html [ quote ] I hate to break it to Confessore, but I've never been told what to write, and I've never written articles in order to curry favor with corporate sponsors of TCS. The person I deal with at TCS--the person I send my articles to--is Nick Schulz, who edits the articles, or occasionally asks me to make some changes to articles I have sent. There was one time that he asked if I would be willing to take on some arguments made by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman about the war powers of the President. I imagine that the reason I was approached with this was that I am a lawyer, and having examined Ackerman's arguments, I found them wanting in every way, and was rather eager--independent of Nick Schulz's request--to refute Ackerman. I provided my counterarguments in this piece. Other than that, I can't remember a single time when Nick suggested a topic. And I certainly have never been ordered to write something. In the overwhelming majority of circumtances, I choose what to write about, and submit it. Already, Confessore's article is being used in an attempt to discredit any arguments that come out of TCS. Henry Farrell calls Glenn Reynolds a "useful idiot" for writing for TCS, and allegedly providing "corporate shill pieces." Chris Bertram wonders if any bloggers will "regret" their association with "a corporate lobbying operation." I can't speak for other writers, but I'll respond to Henry's insulting suggestion by pointing out a fact that is likely obvious to all but him: It's kind of hard to accuse TCS of cranking out "corporate shill pieces" when the writers are basically able to write about whatever they want. TCS may solicit pieces from conservative and libertarian bloggers and writers, but that just means that TCS has a conservative/libertarian bent. Since Henry and others can't take that viewpoint seriously, apparently, they call it "corporate shilling." Unfortunately, of course, advertising is needed to pay the bills, and without the advertising, you would have to pay a subscription fee to read TCS articles, which would reduce readership, and which in all likelihood is precisely what people like Henry Farrell want--the reduced distribution of ideas they don't quite like. Gee, what a shock. And it is for these precise reasons that I don't feel the slightest bit of "regret" for submitting pieces to TCS. I'll continue to do so in the future. Just out of curiosity, has Confessore ever written a muckraking column decrying National Public Radio's sponsorship by the liberal Ford Foundation, and all the ways that NPR's reporting advances Ford Foundation beliefs? Or is this kind of game only played against conservatives and libertarians? And why is it that Confessore doesn't mention something unique to TCS--the fact that it heavily solicits from independent writers like bloggers? Would it be because admitting that TCS solicits freelance work would undermine the argument that TCS puts out articles designed to "shill" for corporate sponsors? And have Confessore, Bertram or Farrell considered the possibility that the sponsorship money follows the opinions--which would be the most logical explanation--and not the other way around? Of course not. Why mess up a good smear with something so inconvenient as the facts? [ end quote ] Yousefzadeh and Reynolds excerpt a few other folks too. Regards, jed -- http://s88369986.onlinehome.us/freedomsight/ ... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state. -- Bruce Schneier _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 22:58:33 PST