A defense of techcentralstation's journalism and credibility

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[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 () frii com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] techcentralstation.com: Reinventing lobbying as
 journalism?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040102102844.038179f8 () mail well com>
References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040102102844.038179f8 () mail well com>

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:45:56 -0500
Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> wrote:

> ---
>
> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
> Subject: Reinventing Lobbying as Journalism
> From: david.e.young () verizon com
> 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/)